From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jul 25 14:28:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA27141; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:28:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 14:28:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907251828.OAA27141@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #251 TELECOM Digest Sun, 25 Jul 99 14:28:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 251 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in Calif (David Clayton) Re: Is This Legal? (John Agosta) Re: Is This Legal? (Robert Bononno) ISPs and IP_telephony (J.F. Mezei) Re: How to Identify a Wireless Number? (Dennis Metcalfe) Re: How to Identify a Wireless Number? (Danny Bateman) Re: Yet Another "Backhoe" Telecom Outage (John R. Levine) Re: Rate Centers (Adam H. Kerman) Re: 800, 888, 877, 866, 855, 844, 833, 822, 811, ??? (Steven Lichter) Synchronous Circuits Problem (Alonza Alcazar) VISA Check Cards (was Re: Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Derek Balling) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Pete Weiss) Re: Your License or Your Life (Alan Boritz) Re: The Crisis at Pacifica Radio (Alan Boritz) Call Processing Help Needed (Rashid Aquil) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:46:33 GMT Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) contributed the following: > Joseph Singer writes: >> I'm afraid what it's going to come down to is that you're going to >> have to remember a ten-digit number rather than the seven that you >> have referred to for years. If everyone quotes their number as all >> ten digits there's no confusion at all. I'll grant you that it is ten >> digits rather than seven, but the reality is that we're moving into a >> minimum ten digit era. > What we really need to do is to go to eight digit local numbers, like > France and Japan did years ago. Australia just recently completed changing to a uniform 8 digit local numbering plan with reasonably little inconvenience. The previous numbering plan was conceived in the early 1960's and had reached the end of it's efficient usability, the new one was conceived with engineering, commercial as well as user issues in mind and should (hopefully) cope with the rapidly changing telecom situation for another 20 years. There was some minor "pain" involved, but the gains should be worth it. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: John Agosta Subject: Re: Is This Legal? Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:07:28 -0500 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com Robert Bononno wrote: > About six weeks ago I switched my LD carrier from MCI to AT&T. I > called Bell Atlantic to authorize the switch since I had blocked my > carrier after being slammed twice (by AT&T of all people). > On the latest bill I see that MCI is still charging for a) their long > distance plan and b) the Internet service fee, which comes to about > six dollars and change. I called MCI to ask about this and after being > put on hold for at least 20 minutes, a rather brusque operator > informed me that although I had switched carriers, I had never called > MCI to cancel the service. Huh? > Doesn't the act of switching constitute cancelling a service? I guess > not. I know I never had to contact any previous LD carrier to tell > them I was switching. Does anyone know what the truth of the matter > is? She cancelled my account (gee thanks) but said I was still > responsible for the charges. Apparently MCI would have been happy to > continue to bill me for a service I didn't know I (still) had. When I sign up for local service / cellular service, the telco asks me what LD carrier I want. I tell them, and they get me on board. When I tell the local telco that I want to switch LD carriers, they should handle the order appropriately. This is a crock, and I wouldn't pay. Tell your local carrier to pay 'cause they only did the job 1/2 way. If this behavior is not against the law, it SHOULD be ! -ja ------------------------------ From: Robert Bononno Subject: Re: Is This Legal? Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 18:15:18 -0400 Steven J. Sobol wrote in message: > On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:25:17 -0400, rbononno@erols.com allegedly said: >> About six weeks ago I switched my LD carrier from MCI to AT&T. I >> called Bell Atlantic to authorize the switch since I had blocked my >> carrier after being slammed twice (by AT&T of all people). TELECOM Digest Editor noted: >> receive the benefits of whatever plan you had been on. Whether or not >> you did continue to use them or not is anyone's guess, and whether or >> not changing the default carrier is to be treated by the former >> default carrier as a 'cancellation' of service is handled in various >> ways. You are best off notifying both the local carrier and the IXC. >> Ditto signing up for service. You can tell the local telco and not >> bother to tell the IXC, but the results are unpredictable. PAT] > You'd better tell the local telco, though, because if not it's very > likely the change won't be put through by them. At least that's my > experience. Oh, I did. I did. I called Bell Atlantic the very day I made the switch. I had to for them to unblock the LD service and I thought that by doing so they would inform MCI, etc. But I guess not. The MCI rep informed me that I could have as many LD carriers as I liked. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: She was right, you can have as many as you want. Only one can be in the position of 'dial one plus', but you can have as many different plans as you feel are appropriate for your needs. One to use in the day, one to use at night, one to use on Sunday, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: ISPs and IP_telephony Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 02:02:06 -0400 There seems to be an urge to make the internet "profitable". I have heard that telephony-over-IP is leaning towards servers instead of allowing client-to-client calls. Obviously, this is to allow someone to meter your calls and charge them, right? Is there any reason why IP telephony must go through a server? Seems to me like the internet will be moving towards a metered usage pattern just to prevent users from using unmetered client-client telephony and thus ruining the internet. I would think that ISPs could do big time damage to the traditional telcos if they allowed fixed IP adresses which would make IP telephony (client to client) a real possibility. So far, at least in my region, both cable and dsl insist on dynamic IP adresses through DHCP. The minute they relent and allow fixed adresses, the internet will take a dramatic new turn in my opinion. ------------------------------ From: dmet@flatoday.infi.net (Dennis Metcalfe) Subject: Re: How to Identify a Wireless Number? Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 00:48:52 GMT Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: dmet@flatoday.infi.net On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:12:24 -0400, Admin wrote: > Many of those on the list will soon come to realize that calls to > wireless phones overseas are rated at a cost much higher than a land > line call to the same country. The separate "land line" and "wireless" > rates for the same country are just beginning to show up on carrier > rate sheets. A related question ... many long distance carriers have plans which offer a set price per minute for international calls. Do they have a way to disallow high priced calls or are they eating the difference between their advertised price and the high priced calls? Right now I use WorldxChange primarily for calls to Denmark, generally to land line phones but GSM usage is quite popular over there. Anyone know? Dennis Metcalfe ------------------------------ From: Danny Bateman Subject: Re: How to Identify a Wireless Number? Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 06:12:27 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , Admin wrote: > Cellphone numbers in Israel are: > +972-50, +972-51, +972-52, +972-53, +972-54 > +972-55 (not yet activated) BTW, I think area code 059 (+972-59 ?) is reserved for calls to the Palestinian Authority. Danny Bateman bateman at shani.net ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 1999 15:46:16 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Yet Another "Backhoe" Telecom Outage Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> (Did you know they pipe nitrogen all over Silicon Valley?) > Why? Keeps the smell down. ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Rate Centers Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 1982 Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:58:17 GMT Danny Burstein wrote: > There are a couple of exceptions that prove the rule (I've always > wanted to use that phrase ...). The five boroughs of NYC are a single > rate zone. Until a decade ago that meant one area code, 212, and that > initially included pagers and cell phones. . . . > Since the whole city is a "local" call for most subscribers, there's > no need for CLECs to gobble up multiple NNXs. Alas, for now they still > gobble an entire NNX, but that's better than taking many of them. And did that indeed happen? Each CLEC assigns numbers from a single rating point, or did they take multiple rating points anyway? And wireless, do they only use a single rating point? Some folks have argued for rate center consolidation to save prefixes. I would argue for limiting CLEC and wireless assignments to specific rate centers based on local distance-based call ratings. If New York is indeed a single rate zone, then no company needs more than a single rating point. ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) Date: 24 Jul 1999 19:18:59 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: 800, 888, 877, 866, 855, 844, 833, 822, 811, ??? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think the people living in 801, > 802 and 803-land would would have liked that decision very much. After > the last available choices are used up in 811, hopefully we will have > gone to some entirely new numbering system. PAT] I had thought that the prefix 811 was local toll free, I know that Pacific Telephone; AKA PacificBell used to use it; and still works to contact business offices and other numbers for public contact numbers. The only good Spammer is a dead one, Have you hunted one down today? Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II and Mac. 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. ------------------------------ From: alcazar3@my-deja.com (Alonzo Alcazar) Subject: Synchronous Circuits Problem Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 06:55:31 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Hi! What is a synchronous circiut in bit serial mode? What other modes of synchronous circuits are there ? Thanks for any answers. Alonzo ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 15:22:40 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Enemy spies say that Robert Eden tramsitted: > Even if it is covered by the credit card rules, how many checks would > you bounce before you realized it? With credit card fraud, you have a > billing cycle to check the statement and correct errors/fraud before > your money goes away. > What most people don't seem to know, is you can get all the benefits > of a debit card without the risk by arranging for your credit card > company to draft your full balance every month from your checking > account. Combine this with a no-fee/ 25 day grace period credit card, > and you basically have a reduced risk debit card. > I refuse all of the "VISA" logo "ATM" cards my bank sends me and > insist on ATM-ONLY cards. Those cards carry lots of additional risk > with -zero- additional benefit. If my bank ever refuses to support a > non-VISA ATM card, I'll change banks. They carry zero additional benefit TO YOU. To people with less than stellar credit, who can't get a "full-blown credit card", but who ARE eligible for "Visa/MasterCard Check Cards", then it is a HUGE tangible benefit. Some non-(V/MC) ATM cards can be used in a debit fashion (via swipe at the grocery store for example) but many cannot, and those that do often impose fees and surcharges just as though the transaction had taken place at a foreign ATM. Plus there are people who simply despise credit. I know that my grandmother, for example, does not have a credit card. She absolutely refuses to even apply for one. She is of a different mindset where you didn't spend on credit. If you don't have the cash to pay for it, you don't get it, period. In today's modern world, this laudible ideal becomes impossible when everywhere you look you need a Visa or Mastercard number to transact with the world. (I challenge someone to get a rental car without a credit card ... I've never had any luck regardless of how much cash I offered to leave as a deposit). There's a lot of valid uses and benefits to a check card, above and beyond that of a standard ATM card. Your solution may work for you, but it is not by any stretch going to work for EVERYone. Why would you REFUSE the Visa Check card? That I don't understand. It still functions for all intents and purposes as an ATM card, and if you never use it as a Visa card, then you never open yourself up to the alleged problems associated with that. You could just cover up the Visa logo with electrical tape and it would function identically to the "non-Visa" ATM card you love. You should switch to Citibank though. They've claimed (to me anyway) that they have no intentions of ever offering Visa check cards ... that may have something to do with their booming credit card business though. D ------------------------------ From: pete-weiss@psu.edu (Pete Weiss) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:13:56 -0400 Organization: Penn State University -- Office of Administrative Systems On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 18:17:45 GMT, Robert Eden wrote: > I refuse all of the "VISA" logo "ATM" cards my bank sends me and > insist on ATM-ONLY cards. How about a debit (POS) card with a $0 daily limit or perhaps $1 ? Pete ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Your License or Your Life Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 17:16:09 -0400 In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > WASHINGTON -- If Representative Lamar Smith has his way, your driver's > license will soon sport your Social Security number, whether you like it > or not. It may also include microchips encoded with your fingerprints > and other personal data. Funny you should mention that. Ryder Truck Rental won't rent you a truck without providing your social security number. Of course, no Ryder agent or employee will explain precisely why they need it if they have a confirmed driver's license in hand. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: The Crisis at Pacifica Radio Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 18:01:42 -0400 In article , Greg Monti wrote: > On 17 Jul 1999, TELECOM Digest Editor > wrote: > But -- I feel Pacifica has treated the employees at its Berkeley > station very poorly. You do not just march everyone out the door > under armed guard and then change the locks on the doors. Sure we do. CBS did exactly that one day when they fired most of the on-air staff at WCBS-TV in NY recently. Their brutal manner made headlines and was even covered by the other TV stations who normally don't publicize business practices of their competition. Perhaps 17 years ago Kodak did something similar when guards marched several thousand employees out to waiting transportion at some of their Rochester, NY, plants in a mass staff reduction that put many people on the street who had been with the company for many years. I'm sure others can recall similarly poorly executed staff reductions and mass firings. It's a common business practice, perhaps more common in broadcasting, since the quality of management is not known to be particularly high. In article , Gary Novosielski wrote: > TELECOM Digest Editor wrote in Vol 19 #225: >> Its easy for me to sit here and wish a plague on both their houses; >> let them eat each other inside-out until the powerless employees >> have all but given up and Pacifica is left with a reputation that >> renders them totally impotent in the process. I am sure the >> federal government is enjoying watching it all unravel also. > Easy for you, perhaps, because you do not have a Pacifica station in > your area. > I'm fortunate to live within the primary signal area of WBAI in New > York (99.5 MHz). It is difficult to describe the sense of "ownership" > felt by listeners of these stations, but it's more than just > psychological. I'm afraid that your sense of "ownership" is entirely psychological. WBAI is a commercial operation in the literal sense. They can take your money and tell you to get lost if they so desire, and there's very little you can do about it. > We do, in fact, pay for the station and keep it on the > air from our own pockets. We also pay the salaries of the Pacifica > Board of Directors, but there is no accountability in return, and that > is what this dispute is really about. Nonsense. How do you know who pays for what if there's no accountability? > There is essentially no corporate underwriting and a pittance of a > grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, when some > right-wing Senator isn't finding a way to get it withheld this year or > next. Our stations don't get grants from Mobil, or Archer Daniels > Midland, or the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies. As a result, they > can report on the murders committed by oil companies in Nigeria, on > the collusion between government and industry in bioengineering our > food supply, and on why the U.S. has no national health care system > for its own citizens. No other outlet from ABC to ZDTV has that kind > of freedom. Oh yes they do. The big difference is that a Pacifica station will report on whatever they feel like, in a professional or unprofessional manner, whether anyone is listening or not; while a commercial station will instead use a targetted approach to reach a specific audience in as effective a manner as possible. Don't mistake freedom to be as undisciplined, unprofessional, and/or offensive as possible with the freedom to serve the public in as effective a way possible. The two don't go together. > If the recent rightward lurch of the Board goes unchecked, Pacifica > becomes just another NPR, bought and paid for by American business, > and unable to run a critical story about anything anyone might > actually need to know. If anyone "needed to know" it wouldn't make a difference if Pacifica covered a story or not, since so few people listen (check any Arbitron ratings book). You really mean YOUR need to know, not mine or anyone else's. > But if we lose what Pacifica has historically represented, it's no > exaggeration to call it the extinction of free speech on the American > airwaves, and the completion of the corporate takeover of what was > once public property. My heart bleeds for you. Really. It takes quite a bit of nerve to try and pitch support for a commercial operation that answers to no one and provides no verifiable public benefit. Strictly speaking, commercial stations are closer to really serving the public, since their performance is regularly measured, to which thier revenues are directly linked. ------------------------------ From: Rashid Aquil Subject: Call Processing Help Needed Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:55:48 +0100 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America I need more info on Feature group D, ANI, KP, ST since I am working on a college project requiring this info in depth. Please where can I find it on the internet? I have been looking around but can't find documents in detail about CALL Processing and switches involved. Thanks, Rashid ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #251 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 26 03:42:20 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA21349; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 03:42:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 03:42:20 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907260742.DAA21349@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #252 TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Jul 99 03:42:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 252 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance (F. Goldstein) 500 & 900 Portability, Toll Free Issues, and 555 Reclamation (Oppenheimer) Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California (J Nagle) Re: Is This Legal? (Denis McMahon) Re: Yet Another "Backhoe" Telecom Outage (Robert Casey) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Sean Donelan) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Scott Dawson) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Alan Bunch) Re: ISPs and IP_telephony (David Clayton) Re: ISPs and IP_telephony (James Gifford) Fan Mail For Moderator (NT Boss) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 00:06:05 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) At 02:28 PM 7/25/1999 -0400, David Clayton dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au wrote: > Australia just recently completed changing to a uniform 8 digit local > numbering plan with reasonably little inconvenience. > The previous numbering plan was conceived in the early 1960's and had > reached the end of it's efficient usability, the new one was > conceived with engineering, commercial as well as user issues in mind > and should (hopefully) cope with the rapidly changing telecom situa- > tion for another 20 years. > There was some minor "pain" involved, but the gains should be worth > it. Typical view from somebody unfamiliar with the North American Numbering Plan. Though it's worse when an American says it, since they should know better. The NANP is Different from what the rest of the world users. It is a strict DETERMINISTIC-LENGTH plan. EVERY telephone number is in a 3-3-4 pattern. Other patterns are also deterministic: X11 is 3-digits long (albeit with a few temporary exceptions in the unassigned codes in a few places). 950-xxxx is a carrier selection prefix. 1+ means that 10 digits follow, unless it's 10 which leads to 101xxxx (fixed) and some reclaimed space from the now-obsolete 10xxx codes. 0+ has a bunch of values, including 01{1} as the access code for nondeterministic international numbers. This determinism is ingrained inside the PSTN. Within the NANPA, calls are sent between switches, using SS7 (and, vestigially, inband signaling) in en-bloc format. That is, the originating switch collects the entire number before sending it along, all digits at once, to the next switch. (This determinism was pretty much a necessity in order to use crossbar switches, which formed the original AT&T direct distance dialing backbone.) In Australia, France, and most other countries, this determinism is not part of the numbering plan. Numbers in some countries are of variable length. Other countries, like Australia, haved fixed lengths that have been changed on occasion, and may not have always been uniform nationwide. In any case, the "rest of world" built its network using "compelled" signaling, in which each switch sends digits as received to the next switch, and the recipient indicateds whether or not it expects more digits. Non-NorAm SS7 carries on the tradition. Therefore the network has no real expectation of number length, and number lengths are fixed in the terminating switches. So there is no possiblity WHATSOEVER that the USA could just move to eight-digit signaling, as there is no handle for it in the current numbering plan. No such digit sequences are vacant. And as other have noted, you can't just "flag day" a network like the PSTN. It would basically collapse for weeks, and millions of lines of PBXs, which understand the 3-3-4 plan, would be off the air. It was bad enough when "interchangeable" area codes took place in 1994, with only something like 20 years' notice (though the actual date was only set a few years earlier). The ONLY handle for extending the plan is the fact that the second digit of an NPA *cannot* be a "9". So there is no area code 498. This leads to the most likely extension plan: New 4-digit NPAs are created with 9 in the second digit (4981), and/or old NPAs are converted to 4-digits by inserting the 9 (617 becomes 6917), allowing, after a year or two of "permissive" 3/4 digit NPA dialing, the old codes to become the first 3 digits of new area codes (6171, 6172). It's also likely that the 4-digit area codes will precede 4-digit prefix codes, hence a 4-4-4 plan intermixed with a 3-3-4 plan. This is properly deterministic, because the second digit's being 9 will indicate 4-4-4. So 617 might be overlaid with 6917 which would have ten times as many prefix codes. Old ones might be prefaced with 0 or 1, so 617 498 5920 becomes 6917 0498 5920 and both numbers work. Of course that requires 1+ dialing, because 691 7049 is a valid 7-digit number. Or they require 10/12 digit dialing of all numbers, as is already done in most overlay areas (sometimes with, sometimes without, the leading 1). This is all somewhat complex, but it does "work", unlike just going to 8 digits. But no matter what is done, the changes *within* the network are only the start of it. The changes required in data bases, cash registers, modems, alarms, payrolls, and other embedded code that has 3-3-4 in it will indeed give the Y2K programmers an even bigger new project to work on. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 21:16:50 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: 500 & 900 Portability, Toll Free Issues, and 555 Reclamation From this week's ICB Behind The Scenes ... 500/900 portability has been back-burnered indefinitely ... The North American Numbering Council (NANC) has advised the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) to discontinue its work on INC Issue #154, 500/900 Portability, saying it believes that the industry has higher priorities that require its immediate attention. The issue originator, GTE, agreed to withdraw the issue as a result, and no further work on the subject is anticipated in the near term. INC is eyeballing toll free number use ... Responding to an OBF/SNAC request for INC to release 866, 855 and 844 codes to it simultaneously, INC asked SNAC to explain the rapid depletion of toll free numbers, asking for info regarding the usage of codes and why so many had been used; asked if the Guidelines for Toll Free Number Administration include any audit provisions and if so, whether an audit had been scheduled or performed; and asked SNAC to clarify its request for simultaneous release of three codes for numbering assignment. 555 battle continues to brew ... as recently discussed in the Digest, INC is now considering 555 number reclamation, even though, by all appearance, there has been no cooperation by ILECs, without which, activation is impossible. The matter was referred by INC to its Numbering Plan Area Workshop; notes from the the Workshop's July INC 44 in Toronto, incredulously state, "... a service provider's inability to effect interconnection agreements is not a valid reason for blocking the reclamation of 555 NXX." Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News, http://icbtollfree.com ICB Consulting, http://800consulting.com WhoSells800.com, http://whosells800.com ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California Date: 26 Jul 1999 01:22:46 GMT Organization: Netcom dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) writes: > nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) contributed the following: >> What we really need to do is to go to eight digit local numbers, like >> France and Japan did years ago. > Australia just recently completed changing to a uniform 8 digit local > numbering plan with reasonably little inconvenience. Yes. France and Japan made the transition about a decade ago. It can be done. It would get us twenty years of stable phone numbers. The usual transition plan is that it's announced that it's going to happen about four years out. All existing numbers are translated to new ones by adding a new first digit which is the same for all existing numbers, there's a permissive dialing period of a year or two, and then a hard cutover. It would probably have about as much impact as an area code split, except that commercial software would be written to understand the transition. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk (Denis McMahon) Subject: Re: Is This Legal? Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 01:20:37 GMT Organization: E-Menu Ltd Reply-To: denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:07:28 -0500, John Agosta wrote: > When I sign up for local service / cellular service, the telco asks me > what LD carrier I want. I tell them, and they get me on board. When I > tell the local telco that I want to switch LD carriers, they should > handle the order appropriately. This is a crock, and I wouldn't pay. > Tell your local carrier to pay 'cause they only did the job 1/2 way. > If this behavior is not against the law, it SHOULD be ! All you're doing (AIUI) is changing the preselected LD carrier that your local loop company will route to if you don't use per-call selection of a specific LD carrier for an individual LD call. You can have multiple per-call selected LD carriers. If you wanted to change the default LD carrier but keep the old default as a per-call option for weekend calls to Europe, you'd get upset if the local operator cancelled your calling plan with the old company when you asked them to switch your preselected carier to the new company. You can't have it both ways. Rgds, Denis McMahon denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk | All mail from some domains is Mob+44 802 468949 Tel/Fax+44 1705 698221 | deleted due to high UCE levels AXE-10 Engineer / Switch Tech? Join the AXE-10 Technical Mailing List. mailto:denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk for invite. No Agencies / Advertising. ------------------------------ From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: Re: Yet Another "Backhoe" Telecom Outage Date: 26 Jul 1999 03:26:28 GMT Organization: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. How about the time back in January 1995 at Newark Airport, when an operator of a pile driver thingie sank a metal I beam right into the main (and only) power feed for the entire airport? (except the tower had its own power). They were putting up a monorail system so people could get from one terminal to another, and the parking lots. And the power company did have the lines marked out. Not sure how the blame got sorted out. ------------------------------ From: sean@sdg.dra.com (Sean Donelan) Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: 25 Jul 99 18:24:39 CDT Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO In article , Derek Balling writes: > Mastercard number to transact with the world. (I challenge someone to > get a rental car without a credit card ... I've never had any luck > regardless of how much cash I offered to leave as a deposit). Allegedly Ralph Nader doesn't have any credit cards, yet he seems to be able to obtain rental cars. Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation ------------------------------ From: sunspace@interlog.com.placeholder (Scott Robert Dawson) Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 03:42:54 GMT Organization: Interlog Internet Services Does this 'check card' behave differently from a Canadian debit card? In Canada, there is a single nationwaide debit-card clearing system called Interac. All the banks, trust companies, credit-unions, etc belong to it. Most merchants have a terminal. When I go to buy things at a store, using my debit card, I use the *same card* I use in an ATM. I have to put in my PIN. The purchase costs me a small fee that is buried in the monthly fee for my account (50c, I think). The effect is as if I had gone to the ATM. The credit limit is the amount of money in my account. Each transaction is verified on the spot before I take the goods: no money; no sale. I heard that debit cards in the US *do not require a PIN to be used*, and this is the source of the reluctance to offer them. Is this true? Is this why they are called 'check cards'? Is it possible to buy something costing more than the balance in your account, and then get the equivalent of a bounced check?? Scott Robert Dawson, Toronto Parolu esperante! > Some non-(V/MC) ATM cards can be used in a debit fashion (via swipe at > the grocery store for example) but many cannot, and those that do > often impose fees and surcharges just as though the transaction had > taken place at a foreign ATM. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 00:09:54 -0500 From: Alan Bunch Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce > Funny you should mention that. Ryder Truck Rental won't rent you a > truck without providing your social security number. Of course, no > Ryder agent or employee will explain precisely why they need it if > they have a confirmed driver's license in hand. How will Ryder know when I give them 172-11-7239, not my real SSN ? My son 15 is now starting decline to give his SSN; got to start 'em young to get head of the game. alabun Alan Bunch Spyder Enterprises Inc. alabun@spyderinc.com 817-329-3692 http://www.spyderinc.com Personal service at it's best ! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To *refuse* to give your SSN is one thing; to deliberatly falsify it is another. If for some reason there was an accident on the road or any reason that the car/truck rental people had a reason to review your application and found the number to be false, there could be serious legal repercussions for you. Decline if you wish; do not falsify. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: ISPs and IP_telephony Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 03:58:42 GMT Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au J.F. Mezei contributed the following: > There seems to be an urge to make the internet "profitable". > I have heard that telephony-over-IP is leaning towards servers instead > of allowing client-to-client calls. Obviously, this is to allow > someone to meter your calls and charge them, right? > Is there any reason why IP telephony must go through a server? Probably because it's one practical solution to provide the grade of service required for an acceptable real time voice connection over the 'net. I don't have a lot of personal experience with using IP telephony, but trying to get a stream of IP packets in a reliable and timely manner between any two nodes can still be a challenge. > So far, at least in my region, both cable and dsl insist on dynamic IP > adresses through DHCP. The minute they relent and allow fixed > adresses, the internet will take a dramatic new turn in my opinion. Once they implement IPv6, then everyone on the planet can have 150 IP addresses and DHCP will be redundant. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: James Gifford Reply-To: gifford@nitrosyncretic.com Organization: Nitrosyncretic Press Subject: Re: ISPs and IP_telephony Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 12:08:32 -0700 J.F. Mezei wrote: > Is there any reason why IP telephony must go through a server? A server, no. A gateway, yes. There are two components to IP telephony: getting the voice signals in and out of the IP environment, and making the connection across the network in the first place. The first part is the job of the gateway, whether it's a single-user Aplio phone or a 256-port Cisco jobbie. If you're using dedicated gateways in, say, your San Francisco and New York offices, you're likely using a WAN or VPN to carry the traffic. Each gateway has a fixed address and the gateways themselves handle all the call setup and teardown. If you're talking about point to point across the Internet, where I plug my Aplio phone into a dialup and need to call you on your Aplio phone, somewhere there has to be the equivalent of a switch that ties my unit to yours. After connection, the conversation travels directly from my unit to yours and back, but there has to be some way for the two units to locate each other. The only workable, cost-effective solution is to use a server that both units contact and say, "here I is!" Bottom line is that, while IP telephony across the Internet is "free" right now, simply because it's a parasitic use of the network. When it becomes a more significant part of the traffic (as it already is on the way to doing), someone, somewhere has to pay for that bandwidth. It'll be done by charging the end user, just as it always has. Nothing is being taken away from you, Joe User, because you can't run your telephony trunks over the public Internet. Besides, the Internet is okay for conversations where degraded audio quality and iffy call setup is acceptable -- that is, among the hobbyists and scattered families crafty enough to use IP telephony to stay in touch. But it's not suitable for general toll use or business. Call quality is an important part of business perception, and no matter how good the deal being tossed at you, if it's over a crappy phone connection, that will have negative impact. IP telephony is only succeeding (and will only succeed as a business and toll service) over private, dedicated networks or VPNs. James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Robert Heinlein FAQ and information on "Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:34:30 -0700 From: NT Boss Subject: Fan Mail For the Moderator Organization: E-Mail @ theglobe.com (http://www.globe-mail.com:80) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I received this delightful letter today sent by a reader. After thinking about it though, I realized that it is just not my work which impressed him so much, it was all the contributions made by you, the other readers which is what really counts. I've only changed a couple things in his letter: Because this is a 'G'-rated newsgroup for enjoyment by families, I had to go through and edit out all his obscenities. I have inserted the phrase (obscenity deleted) where they appeared. His subject line was only the phrase 'You (obscenity deleted)' and that did not make a lot of sense so I changed the title to 'Fan Mail'. I have not changed any of his spelling, punctuation or grammar, because I felt it would detract from this important message for all of us. PAT] ------------------------ Dear (obscenity deleted), You and your kind are much worse than all the spammers on the Internet combined. There are government and legal organizations already passing laws to take care of unsoliceted email. But . . . the spammers and anyone who wants to send you any kind of email for any reason also have legal rights. It's called the First Admendment. Why don't you go after the junk snail mail kings with equal aggressiveness. They cut down millions of trees each year to try to sell you junk. (obscenity deleted) You and your self-proclaimed vigilantes are a menace to business, commerce and democracy everywhere on Planet Earth. If you don't want email, get the (obscenity deleted) the Internet and move to a (obscenity deleted) cave. You don't own the Internet. You don't own or control anything except your own arrogance, ignorance and (obscenity deleted) stupidity. Get the (obscenity deleted) off the Internet. It's not free and it never will be. And I or you or anyone can use the (obscenity deleted)(obscenity deleted) thing for any legal purpose. If you don't like email, don't use it. If you don't want people posting to you newsgroups, don't put them on a public forum. Get the (obscenity deleted) out of your trailer park and get a (obscenity deleted) life! You and your kind are headed for a huge legal liability, not only in America, but worldwide. When you start (obsscenity deleted) with the big boys who control the planet, you're going to get hurt. A word to the wise should be sufficient. - Plato. I didn't ask for your (obscenity deleted) email in my mailbox either, but I had the choice of reading it or deleting it. You know who's driving this "the Internet is evil" train? (obscenity deleted) Idiots like you - the same type of evangelists who brought Hitler and Clinton to power and the (obscenity deleted) retailers who've been ripping us off for hundreds of years. They see the handwriting on the wall. The retail store era is dead and they're scared because you or I or anyone can now start a business for very little investment and not be their wage slaves. And that's taking money out of the military-industrial & big corporate boys pockets and they're (obscenity deleted) and afraid. And they're using people like you and organizations like yours to try to destroy commerce on the Internet and you're too (obscenity deleted) stupid and uninformed to even realize it. You don't own the Internet or any part of it. You have no rights and very little privacy in a public forum. All your information is available to anyone who wants it, thanks to the (obscenity deleted) government who says all your personal information - including your email address - is "publis information". If I or anyone wants to send you an advertisement, by snail mail, email, newsgroup, billboard or (obscenity deleted) carrier bird, that's my right. Welcome to Earth (obscenity deleted) moron. If you need to spend time fighting for a cause, help save all the babies being killed every minute of every day by mother's who are too stupid to swallow a (obscenity deleted) pill, just so some greedy (obscenity deleted) doctor can make his next Mercedes payment. Why don't you make abortion-murder illegal. It's killing human babies and destroying the gene pool. Advertisements don't kill anyone. Or how about fighting against America's oil companies who've polluted the entire (obscenity deleted) planet and who have started every major war since the 1930's and who make over ten trillion tax-free dollars a year at your expense while up to 70% of your wages are taxed by their lackeys in government. But as long as you stupid Americans have your cheap, watered down beer and your stupid football games to placate you and your tasteless, cancer causing fast food, who cares what your politicans are doing? Who care that the American CIA is selling drugs worldwide with your greedy government's blessing and financial aid? Why don't you do (obscenity deleted) something about that? NT Boss The Globe Your friendly full-service integrated online community. http://www.theglobe.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yazzum Boss ... I sure will take your advice. I really am glad to see you are part of a friendly online community as your .signature line says. After all the work I attempt to do for the net and the praise I receive from so many people, it does me good to get abused once in a while, and I thank you for writing. I am sure all the other readers thank you as well for your input here today. I am sorry that the restraints of civility prevented me from publishing your letter in its entireity without the need to censor some of your phraseology. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #252 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 26 14:38:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA13749; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:38:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:38:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907261838.OAA13749@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #253 TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Jul 99 14:38:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 253 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update #192, July 26, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Matthew Black) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Darren Embry) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Robt. Wiegand) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Michael Jones) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (John B. Hines) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Pete Weiss) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Derek Balling) Re: The Crisis at Pacifica Radio (Matthew Black) AT&T Raised Fees Again (Marcy Dixon) Best Answering Machine With Caller ID? Logging Calls? (Tim Stobbe) Re: Is This Legal? (Robert Bononno) TYPO! I Have to Stand Corrected (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Master Phone "Numbers" and Email (Mark Gabriele) Toll-Free Provider Help Needed (egh@usenet.synthesizer.org) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:22:09 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update #192, July 26, 1999 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 192: July 26, 1999 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * AT&T Canada ............... http://www.attcanada.com/ * * Bell Canada ............... http://www.bell.ca/ * * Lucent Technologies ....... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * MetroNet Communications ... http://www.metronet.ca/ * * Sprint Canada ............. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ * * Telus Communications....... http://www.telus.com/ * * TigerTel Services ......... http://www.citydial.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** LD Reseller Files for Bankruptcy ** Bell Service Restored in Toronto ** CRTC to Increase DAL Contribution Surcharge ** Call-Net Adopts Poison Pill ** Call-Net Takes Stake in Calgary ISP ** BC's HotHaus Acquired for $414 Million ** British Telecom Buys NBTel Online Technology ** Innofone Equips Call Centers for Web Customers ** Number Portability Expands to Hamilton ** Colville to Chair Standards Body ** Look Launches Wireless TV in Ottawa, Quebec City ** Videoconferencing Reaches Northwest Ontario ** Aliant Buys NS Equipment Distributor ** QuebecTel Acquires Systems Integrator ** Financial Reports Call-Net Rogers Cantel ** Call Center Seminars in Your Office LD RESELLER FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY: Westcomm, a Toronto-based reseller, has filed for bankruptcy. Westcomm's major business was long distance; its MiFone wireless service, a distributor for the Microcell network, had about 500 customers. BELL SERVICE RESTORED IN TORONTO: Bell Canada says that service from its Simcoe St. Central Office in Toronto was fully restored late July 19, three days after the CO was hit by an electrical explosion and fire. (See Telecom Update #191) ** The 8,700 Ontario customers of Bell's PrimeLine one- number service experienced a two-hour outage July 22, during an attempt to move the service to a Y2K-ready platform. (See Telecom Update #162) CRTC TO INCREASE DAL CONTRIBUTION SURCHARGE: The contribution fees paid by Long Distance carriers include a 2% surcharge for traffic on Direct Access Lines. CRTC Telecom Decision 99-9 rules that 2% is too little. The amount of the increase remains to be determined. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/02/d99-09.htm CALL-NET ADOPTS POISON PILL: After a sharp decline in its share price last week, Call-Net Enterprises adopted a Shareholder Rights Plan to counter the possibility of a hostile takeover. The company says it has no knowledge of any actual takeover moves. CALL-NET TAKES STAKE IN CALGARY ISP: Call-Net has bought 10% of Calgary Internet provider Cybersurf Corp. for $12 Million. Cybersurf plans to roll out free, advertising- supported Internet access across Canada, using Call-Net network services. (See Telecom Update #147) BC's HOTHAUS ACQUIRED FOR $414 MILLION: HotHaus Technologies, a Vancouver-based developer of voice-over-IP software, has been purchased by Broadcom Corp. of Irvine, California, for $414 Million. HotHaus has 70 employees; its 1998 sales were $5 Million. BRITISH TELECOM BUYS NBTEL ONLINE TECHNOLOGY: NBTel will provide its technology for online access to government services to British Telecom, which aims to have 25% of British government transactions conducted online by 2002. ** The New Brunswick telco has also launched NBTel One, which bundles long distance services with either Internet access or two calling features. INNOFONE EQUIPS CALL CENTERS FOR WEB CUSTOMERS: Innofone.Com of Vaughan, Ontario, has announced InnoButton, which lets customers using a voice-equipped PC talk to an agent while browsing a company's Web site. General availability: August. NUMBER PORTABILITY EXPANDS TO HAMILTON: Local number portability will be available in Hamilton on or about August 9, 1999. COLVILLE TO CHAIR STANDARDS BODY: David Colville, the CRTC's Vice-Chairman, Telecommunications, has been appointed Chair of CSA International, the Canadian standards organization. LOOK LAUNCHES WIRELESS TV IN OTTAWA, QUEBEC CITY: Wireless broadcaster Look Communications began service in Ottawa-Hull July 21, a month following its launch in Quebec City. VIDEOCONFERENCING REACHES NORTHWEST ONTARIO: Bell Canada has formed a partnership with ThunderVision (Thunder Bay, Ontario) to provide videoconferencing services in Kenora and six small communities of northwest Ontario, beginning in September. ALIANT BUYS NS EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTOR: AMI Offshore, an Aliant subsidiary that provides systems and materials management for the offshore oil industry, has bought Halifax-based K&D Industries, a distributor of telecom and industrial equipment. QUEBECTEL ACQUIRES SYSTEMS INTEGRATOR: QuebecTel Group has acquired a majority stake in Zenon-Mei, a Montreal-based systems integrator with 150 employees. FINANCIAL REPORTS: During the second quarter: ** Call-Net: Revenue was $323 Million, down 5% from the previous quarter. EBITDA was $9.7 Million; the net loss was $125 Million, up from $66 Million. The number of subscribers fell 7% (residential) and 3% (business). ** Rogers Cantel: Revenue rose to $325 Million, 6.2% above last year. The net loss was $13.2 Million. The monthly turnover of customers ("churn") dropped to 1.54% from 1.87% last year. CALL CENTER SEMINARS IN YOUR OFFICE: Need to get your team up to date on tested techniques in call center management? Experts from Angus Dortmans Associates will bring their top-rated seminars to your site. Topics available include: ** Essential Skills and Knowledge for Effective Incoming Call Center Management ** What Senior Managers Must Know About Incoming Call Centers ** What Agents and Team Leaders Must Know About Incoming Call Centers ** What Suppliers Must Know About Incoming Call Centers ** Planning a New Call Center: Tips Before You Start For further information go to the Angus Dortmans seminars Web page. To discuss your specific education needs, contact Henry Dortmans at 1-800-263-4415 ext. 300 or at dortmans@angustel.ca. http://www.angustel.ca/angdort/adseminar.html HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1999 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: 26 Jul 1999 14:32:11 GMT In article , dredd@megacity.org says: [original message edited for brevity --matt 990726] > Why would you REFUSE the Visa Check card? That I don't understand. It > still functions for all intents and purposes as an ATM card, and if > you never use it as a Visa card, then you never open yourself up to > the alleged problems associated with that. You could just cover up the > Visa logo with electrical tape and it would function identically to > the "non-Visa" ATM card you love. Because if someone stole my VISA check card they could clean out my checking account in two seconds. With an ATM-only card, they'd be limited to $300 per day. Sure they'd need a PIN which I'd freely give someone toting a pistol. Besides, I don't like the VISA company ... perhaps someone offers a MasterCard debit card (-; -----------------------------(c) 1999 Matthew Black, all rights reserved-- matthew black | Opinions expressed herein belong to me and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer california state university | network services SSA-180E | e-mail: black at csulb dot edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 6D 14 36 ED 5F 34 C4 B3 long beach, ca 90840 | E9 1E F3 CB E7 65 EE BC [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One difference, Matt, between you and I is that I would NOT 'freely give my PIN' to someone toting a pistol. My answer to the person would be that if he killed me not only would he not have the necessary PIN but that he would have a murder charge to be dealt with also. I guess I would ask him what good he thought that killing me would do. He needs money, not a conviction for killing someone! I am not trying to sound self-righteous here, but pointing a gun at me does not impress me. I've had a long life, and if I get a few more years then fine, if not fine. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dsembr01@ox.slug.louisville.edu (Darren Stuart Embry) Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: 26 Jul 1999 16:51:14 GMT Organization: University of Louisville [comp.dcom.telecom] Sean Donelan wrote: > In article , Derek Balling > writes: >> Mastercard number to transact with the world. (I challenge someone to >> get a rental car without a credit card ... I've never had any luck >> regardless of how much cash I offered to leave as a deposit). > Allegedly Ralph Nader doesn't have any credit cards, yet he seems to > be able to obtain rental cars. If you call various rental car agencies and ask what their policies are on those of us without credit cards (or perhaps just check their web sites), you'll actually find that the policies vary. At least one agency I talked to, for example, will require you to produce two utility bills and your driver's license (they have to be IN YOUR NAME -- this won't work if you live in your parents' house) and then they'll let you pay with cash or a debit card. Now what I find silly is that I also can't rent a car even if I have someone else I know show up and pay with his credit card. In light of what I heard from rental car agencies on why they want people to pay with credit cards in the first place (basically they want to make sure they get their money from the card holder), that's just totally dumb. When I tried this a couple months ago, I was 25 years of age and the card holder who was going to pay was 19; I don't know if his age was a factor or not. Darren Stuart Embry. Good with pets. http://www.slug.louisville.edu/~dsembr01/ * The business practices of dominant companies like Microsoft serve to harm the computer industry and you. Protect yourself. Look for alternatives. http://www.netaction.org/ http://www.vcnet.com/bms/ http://www.linux.org/ ------------------------------ From: Robert Wiegand Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:36:04 -0500 Organization: Motorola CIG Derek Balling wrote: > Why would you REFUSE the Visa Check card? That I don't understand. It > still functions for all intents and purposes as an ATM card, and if > you never use it as a Visa card, then you never open yourself up to > the alleged problems associated with that. You could just cover up the > Visa logo with electrical tape and it would function identically to > the "non-Visa" ATM card you love. It functions identically to an ATM card until you have it stolen. Then there is a big difference. You don't need a PIN number to use the Check Card. By the time you get the card canceled they can clean out your checking account. Regards, Bob Wiegand bwiegand@sesd.cig.mot.com ------------------------------ From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: 26 Jul 1999 09:29:25 -0400 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA sean@sdg.dra.com (Sean Donelan) writes: > In article , Derek Balling > writes: >> Mastercard number to transact with the world. (I challenge someone to >> get a rental car without a credit card ... I've never had any luck >> regardless of how much cash I offered to leave as a deposit). > Allegedly Ralph Nader doesn't have any credit cards, yet he seems to > be able to obtain rental cars. There are a lot of things in life that work differently once you become famous. Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu I have no doubt that most Unix buyers buy Unix so that they can run Unix. - an Apple spokesman ------------------------------ From: jhines@enteract.com (John B. Hines) Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 13:41:24 GMT Organization: US Citizen, disabled with MS, speaking solely for myself. sunspace@interlog.com.placeholder (Scott Robert Dawson) wrote: > I heard that debit cards in the US *do not require a PIN to be used*, > and this is the source of the reluctance to offer them. Is this true? > Is this why they are called 'check cards'? Is it possible to buy > something costing more than the balance in your account, and then get > the equivalent of a bounced check?? That seems to be the big difference, I have a Visa branded debit/ATM card, and the local grocery store will take it either as a Visa card, or as an ATM card. When used as a debit card, it doesn't require a PIN to be entered, but does require a signature. While the balance is checked immediately, as part of the debit authorization, the transaction is put thru using the standard credit card processing, so it can be a couple of days before the transaction actually hits the bank account, during which you could withdraw the money from the account. ------------------------------ From: pete-weiss@psu.edu (Pete Weiss) Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:01:14 -0400 Organization: Penn State University -- Office of Administrative Systems > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To *refuse* to give your SSN is one > thing; to deliberatly falsify it is another. If for some reason there > was an accident on the road or any reason that the car/truck rental > people had a reason to review your application and found the number > to be false, there could be serious legal repercussions for you. > Decline if you wish; do not falsify. PAT] Furthermore, the person whose SSN your forged could get into hot-water. Pete [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not really they wouldn't. They would have the inconvenience of seeing a lawyer perhaps, and having to sign off on an affidavit that the fraudulent activity did not carry their signature and handwriting. I think it is mean to do that to someone, to cause them all that hassle, especially if it is someone not that well educated with the knowledge of how to get a lawyer and/ or mitigate their own involvement in the matter immediatly. But once they were shown to have no part in it, they would be off the hook. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 07:10:39 -0700 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce At 03:42 AM 7/26/99 -0400, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To *refuse* to give your SSN is one >> thing; to deliberatly falsify it is another. If for some reason there >> was an accident on the road or any reason that the car/truck rental >> people had a reason to review your application and found the number >> to be false, there could be serious legal repercussions for you. >> Decline if you wish; do not falsify. PAT] You are not required to tell the truth to anyone. I read a story on this a few years ago, but it was an essay on when you did/did-not have to respond accurately with your SSN. It also listed a bunch of "safe" false-SSN's. (Ones which have been surrendered by the SSA for use in things like wallet inserts, etc.). You can find that list also at http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/ssn/SSN-addendum.html#FakeNumbers ... That way if anyone DOES try to claim you were "impersonating someone else", you can point to it being a reserved SSN and you weren't impersonating anyone, that you just didn't want to give Skippy at the Ryder Truck Rental information he had no business needing. And its especially useful, because unlike "555-xxxx", that false SSN _LOOKS_ good. :) D [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are only required to tell the truth if you allow yourself to be placed under oath or affirmation to do so. There is that little problem which comes up at the bottom of the form where you sign your name stating that what you stated ahead of your signature is the truth to the best of your ability to state it. If you do not tell the truth while in fact stating that you have told the truth, then you have some potential legal problems. If you give out deliberatly incorrect information on, for example, an application for an extension of credit, it becomes mail or postal fraud -- a federal offense -- since by your statements you caused the creditor to deposit plastic addressed to you in a United States mail receptacle. Ditto wth the car rental people. If your deliberatly incorrect statements on their application form pursuade them to loan you a vehicle, and you drive the vehicle across a state line thus making the transaction inter- state in nature, you have a federal situation. If the car rental people deposit some paperwork addressed to you in a mail receptacle, now you have postal fraud as well. A good rule of thumb is this: it is okay to lie if you wish, or let's say at least there are no civil laws against it. It is also okay to affirm or be under oath if you wish. Just do not do both at the same time. The minute you sign a contract or a statement of some sort, you are bound by the terms of the contract, or the things said in the statement. Your signature essentially serves as your affirmation or your oath. PAT] ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: The Crisis at Pacifica Radio Date: 26 Jul 1999 14:42:56 GMT Organization: Your Organization In article , aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET says: [original message edited for brevity--matt 990726] > My heart bleeds for you. Really. It takes quite a bit of nerve to > try and pitch support for a commercial operation that answers to no > one and provides no verifiable public benefit. Strictly speaking, > commercial stations are closer to really serving the public, since > their performance is regularly measured, to which thier revenues are > directly linked. Can you define "serving the public?" Does that mean serving only commercially popular demand? Should all human activity be measured by its commercial value? Most news reports are so bereft of integrity that I find them utterly useless. I hardly ever read PC week due to ZD's biased and, IMHO, incompetent reporting. From which source(s) do you get national and world news? Newspapers and the (MacNeil) Leher News Hour provide far more depth than ABC network news -- the so called most popular source. I'd love to see ABC show a negative report on Disney (short of reporting an accident like that dock cleat which killed a guest). -----------------------------(c) 1999 Matthew Black, all rights reserved-- matthew black | Opinions expressed herein belong to me and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer california state university | network services SSA-180E | e-mail: black at csulb dot edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 6D 14 36 ED 5F 34 C4 B3 long beach, ca 90840 | E9 1E F3 CB E7 65 EE BC [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the online edition of the news reports I publish each day at http://telecom-digest.org/news I tried honestly to only select the sources I felt were truthful and unbiased in their reporting. If users see problems with any the sources I have there, I would appreciate hearing about it. That section was expanded over the weekend to include several more online/internet resources, as well as various audio presentations from online news resources. After checking out http://telecom-digest.org/news -- and I hope you will become a regular user of the feature -- also please look into the poll question of the week at http://telecom-digest.org/vote.html where the question this week deals with your long distance carrier. You do need to accept cookies to participate, but you can dump them afterward if you wish. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Marcy Dixon Subject: AT&T Raised Fees Again Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:41:49 -0500 Organization: SBC Internet Services AT&T recently raised their PICC and USF fees on my residential line. They used to be $.85 for PICC and $.93 for USF. Now they're $1.51 and $.99 respectively. Do they charge business customers these fees? Is so, do they charge the same as their residential customers? ------------------------------ From: stobbe@earthlink.net (Tim Stobbe) Subject: Best Answering Machine With Caller ID? Logging calls? Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 15:18:17 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: stobbe@earthlink.net Will any of these machines log all incoming calls? I know there is some software available to do this, but I would have to leave my computer running 24/7 while out of town. I was considering the Microsoft phone, but I found out it will not be supported in win2000. Figures. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Robert Bononno Subject: Re: Is This Legal? Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:09:03 -0400 Denis McMahon wrote in message: > On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 21:07:28 -0500, John Agosta > wrote: >> When I sign up for local service / cellular service, the telco asks me >> what LD carrier I want. I tell them, and they get me on board. When I >> tell the local telco that I want to switch LD carriers, they should >> handle the order appropriately. This is a crock, and I wouldn't pay. >> Tell your local carrier to pay 'cause they only did the job 1/2 way. >> If this behavior is not against the law, it SHOULD be ! > All you're doing (AIUI) is changing the preselected LD carrier that > your local loop company will route to if you don't use per-call > selection of a specific LD carrier for an individual LD call. > You can have multiple per-call selected LD carriers. If you wanted to > change the default LD carrier but keep the old default as a per-call > option for weekend calls to Europe, you'd get upset if the local > operator cancelled your calling plan with the old company when you > asked them to switch your preselected carier to the new company. You > can't have it both ways. I'm curious. How would the local carrier know through which LD carrier to route an outgoing LD call? Unless it's a 10-10-xxx number, that is. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is the reason you can only have one choice for the default 'one plus' carrier and all the rest have to be picked using ten-ten each time you dial. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:56:41 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: TYPO! I Have to Stand Corrected Lord, it must have been late -- did I write 866, 855 and 844? Please make a correction - it's 844, 833 and 822 ... sorry ... Judith INC is eyeballing toll free number use ... Responding to an OBF/SNAC request for INC to release 866, 855 and 844 codes to it simultaneously, INC asked SNAC to explain the rapid depletion of toll free numbers, asking for info regarding the usage of codes and why so many had been used; asked if the Guidelines for Toll Free Number Administration include any audit provisions and if so, whether an audit had been scheduled or performed; and asked SNAC to clarify its request for simultaneous release of three codes for numbering assignment. ------------------------------ From: gabriele@rand.org (Mark Gabriele) Subject: Re: Master Phone "Numbers" and Email Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:42:34 -0700 Organization: The RAND Corporation In article , Colin Sutton wrote: > What I'd like is the opposite. On my phone I would set up a shortkey > to an email address, rather than a phone number. On calling that > number my speech is sent as an attachment. When the recipient reads > the email, s/he can respond using the computer microphone (a > reply/voice option is needed) and a live connection set up. (That > ought to be possible between computers too). > Then we don't need phone numbers any more, but email addresses. The > phone number could be hidden from the user by the phone company, who > allows you to set my_phone.colin@phone_company.com to call > +61241nnnnnnnnn when the SIM card is registered. Then the phone > company can add digits to codes at will. There is a partial sort of service like this, called MyTalk.com, which is offered (for free!!) by General Magic (who created the "Magic Hat" operating system used in the early Sony PDAs). The user sets up an email account on MyTalk.com, and receives a toll-free telephone number and PIN. Any email sent to the user's MyTalk account is read to the user when they call in; and the user can send voice replies which are encoded and sent as email attachments. It's kind of a neat idea, really, and the whole thing works by natural speech commands. They have a full-up commercial system called Portico which offers more secretarial-style functionality, as well, and may be closer to what Mr. Sutton is looking for. Mark Gabriele / gabriele@rand.org "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." -Last words of Gen. John Sedgwick, from a parapet overlooking the Battle of Spottsylvania, during the United States' Civil War. ------------------------------ From: egh@usenet.synthesizer.org (egh) Subject: Toll-Free Provider Help Needed Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 18:12:35 GMT We are looking to move from a resold tollfree service to a "tier 1" (if you will) toll-free provider. The primary reason for this is that we use US (800, 888, 877) numbers as a front end pointing to dialed numbers in the UK, which when using a reseller can entail some lengthy dead-air delays (up to 20 secs). Is there a better way of going about this than just cold-calling ATT, Sprint, etc.? Thanks for any pointers, Eric ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #253 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 26 19:16:07 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA25792; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:16:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:16:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907262316.TAA25792@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #254 TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Jul 99 19:16:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 254 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Alex Bell and President Garfield's Assassination (historybuff.com reprint) Qwest LD After Merger (reedh@rmi.net) Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce (Jack Decker) Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) (A Kamlet) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View on Net Commerce) (Jon Carpenter) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Andrew) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Steven Sobol) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. From: www.historybuff.com Subject: Alex Bell and President Garfield's Assassination Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:00:00 EDT Alexander Graham Bell and the Garfield Assassination [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to www.historybuff.com and mailto:rbrown@tir.com for this interesting report. PAT] By R.J. Brown Editor-in-Chief Some people ask me "Why bother to collect old newspapers? If I want to read dry, boring history, I can just get a history book." My answer to this is that even the best of history books leave out some mighty interesting asbpects of historical events. The only way they can be re-discovered, is through reading original newspapers published during the time of the event. The assassination of president James Garfield in 1881 is a prime example of this. James Garfield was assassinated on July 2, 1881 and lingered until September 19, 1881 when he died. The problem was that a bullet was lodged inside his chest. The two methods of treatment at the time were: (1) If the bullet had penetrated the liver (or other organs) it would mean certain death without surgery to remove it. (2) If the bullet hadn't penetrated an organ was wasn't lodged tightly against an organ at the present time, the chances of recovery were much better if they delayed the surgery until the president's condition stabilized. Therefore, finding the exact location of the bullet was very critical in the president's recovery. X-rays had not been invented yet so the only way to determine the exact location of the bullet was to do a manual probe with instruments. If they were to make continued probes to locate the bullet, it increased the risk of infection. As a result of this indecision, a most unique journalistic style arose. Newspapers across the United States printed editorial after editorial making big light of this indecision by the White House doctors. Soon, lay-people, as well as qualified medical personnel, jumped in with their opinions. The White House doctors were deluged with package after package containing such items as special herbs, teas, home remedies, poultices, as well as patent medicines. A special area was set up in the White House basement to store all the items. In addition, people with medical degrees sent lengthy letters giving their opinions on what should be done. Many of these letters were also published in newspapers. Coverage of the debate received so much attention that discussions from this angle over shadowed the current medical condition of the president. One such example of the press taking over the job of finding the answer as to finding the exact location of the bullet took place one week after the shooting. Simon Newcomb of Baltimore was interviewed by a reporter for the Washington National Intelligencer. Newcomb had been experimenting with running electricity through wire coils and the effect metal had when placed near the coils. He had found that when metal was placed near the coils filled with electricity that a faint hum could be heard at that point in the coil. The problem was that the hum was so faint that is was very difficult to hear. He suggested that he might be able to perfect his invention so that it could be used on the President but, unfortunately, he though that the perfection of the apparatus would take too long. While in Boston, Alexander Graham Bell read the newspaper account mentioned in the above paragraph of this article. Upon reading this account, Bell telegraphed Newcomb in Baltimore and offered to assist him. Further, he suggested that perhaps his own invention of the telephone was the answer he had been seeking. His telephone amplified sound made through wire! Newcomb accepted Bell's offer. Bell immediately went to Baltimore to work with Newcomb. White House surgeons spent a lot of time at the Baltimore lab witnessing the experiments. The invention consisted of two coils of insulated wire, a battery, a circuit breaker, and Bell's telephone. The ends of the primary coil were connected to a battery and those of the secondary coil were fastened to posts of the telephone. When a piece of metal was placed in the spot where the circuit breaker was, a hum could be heard in the telephone receiver. As the metal was moved further away, the hum became more faint. Five inches away was the maximum distance that a hum could still be heard. Various methods of testing the apparatus were tried. At first a game of hide and seek was played. Either Bell or Newcomb would hide an unspent bullet in their mouth, arm pit, or elsewhere on their body. The other would pass the wand over the others' body. Meanwhile an assistant would be listening on the telephone to announce (based on the hum) where the bullet was and how far away from the tip of the wand it was. Next, the experiments included spent bullets and hiding them in bags of grain, inside sides of beef and so forth. Various adjustments were made with each test. As a final test, before using it on the president, they went to the Old Soldiers Home in Washington, D.C. where they solicited Civil War veterans and lined them up in open fields. They passed the wand over each volunteer's body. As some still had bullets in their body from doing battle in the war, this provided a very close approximation of what they hoped their invention would accomplish -- locate a bullet inside a human body. In each case, the soldiers with bullets still in them, and where the bullets were, were identified. Now was the appropriate time to try the invention on the president. On July 26, Bell, his assistant Tainter, and Newcomb had an appointment at the White House. In the early evening they made their first attempt to locate the bullet using their apparatus. There were also five White House doctors and several aides present for this experiment. The president looked apprehensive as the wand was passed over his body. He expressed a fear of being electrocuted. Bell offered reassurance and tried to explain how the apparatus worked. None-the- less, Garfield's eyes never left the wand through out the experiment. The results of the experiment were inconclusive s there was a faint hum no matter where the wand was placed on the president's body. After many attempts, Bell, Newcomb and Tainter left the White House wonder just where they went wrong. Meanwhile, the press used this failure as a personal attack on Bell. The hostility of the rivalry among claimants that they (and not Bell) were the first ones to invent the telephone was at its peak at this time. Many lawsuits were already pending in the courts over this issue. The publicity over Bell using his invention to attempt to find the bullet in the president's body didn't help matters. Editorials in newspapers called Bell a "publicity seeker." Undaunted, Bell returned to the lab with Newcomb and Tainter. They ran more experiments. It still worked just fine in the lab and at the Old Soldier's Home. Bell managed to talk White House doctors into letting them come back and try again. The last day of July they went back to the White House to try again. It was the same thing again -- no matter where they placed the wand on the president's body, a faint hum could be heard. When they moved the wand away from the president's body the hum could no longer be heard. All were stumped. It worked fine on everyone else but the president. Feeling dejected, they again left the White House. Bell continued back to Boston and gave up trying to perfect the invention. A few weeks after their last attempt, President Garfield was moved to his home in New Jersey and died on September 19, 881. So what is the answer to why Bell's and Newcomb's invention worked on everyone except the president? It wasn't the president that was the problem. The problem was the bed he was in. Coil spring mattresses had just been invented. In fact, a national campaign hadn't even been started yet at the time of the assassination. The White House was one of the few that had the coil spring mattresses at the time. Very few people had even heard of them. Thus, Bell's and Newcomb's invention was detecting metal -- unfortunately they didn't realize that it was the coil springs. If they had moved him off the bed to the floor or table, their apparatus would have detected where the bullet was and likely, knowing this, the White House surgeons could have saved James Garfield's life! Send mail to mailto:rbrown@tir.com the author of this article. -------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to Mr. Brown and History Buff for this fascinating article I am sharing with you today. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Reed Subject: Qwest LD After Merger Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 13:39:02 -0600 After Qwest merges with USWest, Qwest has stated they will *not* provide LD service in USW 14 state territory. (Because USW has not proved open access yet.) What choices will people in the 14 states, with (or were planning on) Qwest as their 1+ provider, have for a .09/min, no minimum, carrier ?? Will pre-merger subscribers be "grand-fathered" ?? (or "orphaned/abandoned") Have e-mailed same question to Qwest. reed [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do let us know if you receive any satis- factory answers, or even unsatisfactory ones. In the telecom poll question for the week, reader's are asked to name their primary long distance carrier. About ten percent thus far have named Qwest. Vote or see the full results at http://telecom-digest.org/vote.html PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:53:15 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Moderator's View on Net Commerce On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 00:09:54 -0500, Alan Bunch wrote: > How will Ryder know when I give them 172-11-7239, not my real SSN ? > My son 15 is now starting decline to give his SSN; got to start 'em > young to get head of the game. TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To *refuse* to give your SSN is one > thing; to deliberatly falsify it is another. [.....] Well, we soon may not have that option. The following was extracted from a technology-related e-mail newsletter called Tasty Bits from the Technology Front, that I received last night (the URL for the complete issue is http://tbtf.com/archive/1999-07-26.html). ... US national identity card looms in October Is this any way for the Beacon of Democracy to act? The time is fast approaching when the US government will, unless a 1996 law is amended, instruct all states to replace your driver's license with one featuring your social security number in visible and machine-readable form, and possibly your fingerprints as well [16]. Here are some of the problems that widespread, mandated exposure of your social security number could cause [17]. The law that spawned these regulations from the Department of Trans- portation is the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsi- bilities Act [18], passed in 1996. Transportation was poised to an- nounce and enforce a national driver's-license standard last year, but civil liberties groups managed -- just barely -- to enact a 1- year stay of execution for the national ID card [19]. It expires in October. Opposition groups failed last month to insert into a Trans- portation funding bill a provision overturning section 656(b) of the 1996 law. The chairman of the Immigration and Claims subcommittee of the Ju- diciary Committee, Lamar Smith (R-TX), says that creating a national ID card was never the intent of the 1996 law; he now sports a Web page [20] declaring his opposition to the very idea. But Smith has acknowledged that the regulations drafted by the Transportation Department do, in fact, establish just such a national ID. Smith's subcommittee will hold a hearing [21] on the repeal of sec- tion 656(b) on Thursday 29 July, at 9:30 a.m., in room 2226 of the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington. It would be an excel- lent time to let your representative know where you stand on issues of privacy and a national ID card, especially if your representative is a member of this subcommittee: Berman, Howard (CA, 26th district) Cannon, Chris (UT, 3rd) Canady, Charles (FL, 12th) Frank, Barney (MA, 4th) Gallegly, Elton (CA, 23rd) Goodlatte, Bob (VA, 6th) Jackson Lee, Sheila (TX, 18th) Lofgren, Zoe (CA, 16th) McCollum, Bill (FL, 8th) Meehan, Marty (MA, 5th) Pease, Ed (IN, 7th) Scarborough, Joe (FL, 1st) Smith, Lamar (TX, 21st) -- Chairman [16] http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/politics/story/20881.html?wnpg=all [17] http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10-ssn.htm [18] http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page2/fp-104-208-immigration.html [19] http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/politics/story/15635.html?wnpg=all [20] http://www.house.gov/lamarsmith/idcardhtm.htm [21] http://www.house.gov/judiciary/schedule.htm [End of excerpt] Of course, if this really comes about, our *real* SSN will be printed right on our driver's license, fully accessible to anyone that demands to see our state-issued photo I.D. before providing some service. On the one hand, I think there are some very good reasons to be concerned about this. On the other hand, if such a sweeping law passes, it will at least mean that our esteemed lawmakers will be just as vulnerable as the rest of us when they rent a car or are otherwise required to present photo I.D. for whatever reason. It's quite possible that the "law of unintended consequences" will kick in, and after a few of our lawmakers (or their friends or family) get burned, they might start to see some benefit in protecting people's privacy (hopefully they won't just exempt themselves, and let the rest of us twist in the wind). And also, maybe the general public will start to wake up and demand some privacy protections, and then those of us who have been refusing to give our SSN's for years will no longer be perceived as paranoid nut cases or something of that ilk. Trouble is, I'm not willing to bet on any of these positive benefits coming about, so I hope the law is amended or repealed before October. What should also bother us is that all legislation of this type simply tramples all over the constitutional protections for "states' rights", but as someone unknown once said, "The Constitution may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than what the government's using these days." Jack (To reply via private e-mail, make the obvious modification to my e-mail address) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I am still hearing stories from different directions that the quietly-passed law requiring 'proper documentation' to be presented in the purchase of airline tickets is still scheduled for later next year as well. If it is only a rumor, it seems a very persistent one. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) Date: 26 Jul 1999 18:05:37 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Fred Goldstein wrote: > This is all somewhat complex, but it does "work", unlike just going to > 8 digits. But no matter what is done, the changes *within* the > network are only the start of it. The changes required in data bases, > cash registers, modems, alarms, payrolls, and other embedded code that > has 3-3-4 in it will indeed give the Y2K programmers an even bigger > new project to work on. I believe in the not too distant future the phone itself will always encode the number being called, or people will carry around tiny address book/dialers so you just have to press "Howard" and it will go through. This will make the problem of TN encoding one level removed from users of those numbers, just like IP addresses are not really known by users of those numbers. When the great 8 -> 32 bit IP address conversion takes place, users should be fairly oblivious to it. Same for changes of area codes, splits, and whatever happens with the numbers. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had understood the official 'start up' of the new IP addressing scheme was earlier this month, although it may be some time before anyone notices it to any degree. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jon Carpenter Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View on Net Commerce) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:20:27 -0400 Robert Wiegand wrote: > Derek Balling wrote: >> Why would you REFUSE the Visa Check card? That I don't understand. It >> still functions for all intents and purposes as an ATM card, and if >> you never use it as a Visa card, then you never open yourself up to >> the alleged problems associated with that. You could just cover up the >> Visa logo with electrical tape and it would function identically to >> the "non-Visa" ATM card you love. > It functions identically to an ATM card until you have it stolen. Then > there is a big difference. You don't need a PIN number to use the Check > Card. By the time you get the card canceled they can clean out your > checking account. But you're protected just like you are for a credit card. This is on the MasterCard web site at http://www.mastercard.com/ourcards/consumer/wave.html: And your debit card will be good to you. You're in the driver's seat should your card be lost or stolen. If you notice your debit card missing, notify your card issuer immediately. The two major payment card companies limit your liability to a maximum of $50 and it could be as low as zero if you report your card missing immediately. But, it's up to you to safeguard your debit card and notify the issuer as soon as you discover it missing. ------------------------------ From: andrew@3.1415926.org (Andrew) Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: 26 Jul 1999 21:40:44 GMT Organization: MaTech John B. Hines (jhines@enteract.com) wrote: > While the balance is checked immediately, as part of the debit > authorization, the transaction is put thru using the standard credit > card processing, so it can be a couple of days before the transaction > actually hits the bank account, during which you could withdraw the > money from the account. With a credit card, the moment a charge is authorized, your credit line is reduced by the amount of the authorization. The moment your VISA check card is authorized, funds in your checking account are frozen to cover the authorization. The funds might sit in your account until the charge is posted, but you can't touch it and the bank won't use the frozen funds to cover any checks that might come in before the charge posts. It is standard practice for many restaurants and clubs to pre-authorize $500 on the credit cards of people who want to run a tab. The local radio consumer advocate in Atlanta, Clark Howard has gotten innumerable complaints from people who have bounced checks as a result of these large authorizations. IIRC it takes about a week for the authorizations to expire. Andrew ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: 26 Jul 1999 20:42:12 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On 26 Jul 1999 14:32:11 GMT, black@csulb.edu allegedly said: > Because if someone stole my VISA check card they could clean out my > checking account in two seconds. With an ATM-only card, they'd be > limited to $300 per day. Sure they'd need a PIN which I'd freely give > someone toting a pistol. Besides, I don't like the VISA company > ... perhaps someone offers a MasterCard debit card (-; At least one major bank does (Key Bank). North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #254 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 27 13:42:11 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA00731; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:42:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:42:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907271742.NAA00731@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #255 TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Jul 99 13:48:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 255 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Chris Herot) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (J.F. Mezei) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View on Net Commerce) (Johnnie Leung) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Ed Ellers) Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) (D Clayton) Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) (JF Mezei) Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) (Pelliccio) Re: Yet Another "Backhoe" Telecom Outage (Anthony Argyriou) Re: Recording ADPCM Files (John S. Maddaus) Digital Big Brother Poses Threat to Consumer Privacy (Monty Solomon) A Problem About Q.822 (Simon CaiMao) Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in Calif (Linc Madison) Payphone Surcharges on Wrong Numbers (Carl Navarro) Re: AT&T Raised Fees Again (Matthew Black) Re: Best Answering Machine With Caller ID? Logging Calls? (Brian A Doreste) Re: How to Identify a Wireless Number? (Frank Pizer) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher_Herot@lotus.com (Chris Herot) Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:26:29 -0400 Even if you prefer to have your purchases deducted immediately from your account instead of enjoying the float, I would think twice about carrying a debit card. In all states your maximum liablity if your credit card is stolen is $50, even if you never report it as lost. If you do report it immediately your liability is zero. Most banks will waive the $50 in any case. The bank immediately cancels the erroneous charges and sends you a new card. With a debit card, your liability is much higher, potentially unlimited. In Massachusetts, where the state law limits your liability to $50, you still need to fight with the bank to get your money back. The presumption is that you spent it until the bank is persuaded that the card was stolen. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:14:32 -0400 Scott Robert Dawson wrote: > Does this 'check card' behave differently from a Canadian debit card? Yes, very. Interac in Canada, EFTPOS in Australia (and New Zealand) use your ATM card with your ATM PIN number. In canada, Interac is an association of member banks. There is no "risk" associated with frauds and the merchant. The merchant either gets his money right away or never gets it. (money is directly transfered into his merchant account as soon as transaction is OKed). From what I was told, the VISA check card is processed/handled by merchants as credit card transactions. As such, I would assume that the merchant's credit card processing fees (% of sales) is taken out and you have the various aspects of getting an authorisation etc etc. It is unclear to me though what happens with the customer's money. I assume it is taken out right away because of the authorisation, but it is unclear who holds that money until the merchant claims it. The cardholder' bank ? VISA ? The merchant's bank ? What I found astounding in a recent trip through New York state is that at convenience stores, I saw "ATM-like" machines next to the cash registers where you could insert you card and PIN, and the amount, and for a rather large transaction fee, the owner of the ATM machine would print a receipt you could present to the merchant in lieu of real cash (assuming merchant then gets his money when he presents such a receipt?). If countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand (the later two well before Canada) can get their act together and present a unified nationwide EFTPOS network, how come the USA hasn't done it yet ? You'll note that Interac in canada is an association with loose membership requirements. (As opposed to Canadian Bankers' Association where only banks are allowed to be members). Interac has no bias towards VISA or MASTERCARD and groups institutions of both "religions". When Interac (debit) was rolled out in Canada, any merchant wishing to support it had to have its POS terminals upgraded to include the PIN pad so that the cardholder can enter his PIN. (same in other countries that have nationla POS networks). What percentage of stores in the USA have PIN pads attached to their POS terminals ? ------------------------------ From: Johnnie Leung Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View on Net Commerce) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:54:04 -0700 Organization: Netcom Jon Carpenter wrote in message: > But you're protected just like you are for a credit card. This is > on the MasterCard web site at > http://www.mastercard.com/ourcards/consumer/wave.html Okay, if someone cleaned out my checking account before I report my card missing, will the bank refund my money immediately (less the '$50 maximum liability')? And what about interest charges and penalties as a result of bounced cheques? Johnnie Leung ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 01:39:36 -0400 Andrew (andrew@3.1415926.org) wrote: "It is standard practice for many restaurants and clubs to pre- authorize $500 on the credit cards of people who want to run a tab. The local radio consumer advocate in Atlanta, Clark Howard has gotten innumerable complaints from people who have bounced checks as a result of these large authorizations. IIRC it takes about a week for the authorizations to expire." There have also been reports of this sort of thing being done by car rental companies when a customer declines the "loss damage waiver" that the companies sell as an option -- which often puts the customer very close to his credit limit, at the worst possible time. ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:33:35 GMT Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Fred Goldstein contributed the following: > At 02:28 PM 7/25/1999 -0400, David Clayton dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au > wrote: >> Australia just recently completed changing to a uniform 8 digit local >> numbering plan with reasonably little inconvenience. >> The previous numbering plan was conceived in the early 1960's and had >> reached the end of it's efficient usability, the new one was >> conceived with engineering, commercial as well as user issues in mind >> and should (hopefully) cope with the rapidly changing telecom situa- >> tion for another 20 years. >> There was some minor "pain" involved, but the gains should be worth >> it. > Typical view from somebody unfamiliar with the North American > Numbering Plan. Though it's worse when an American says it, since > they should know better. ..... (Stuff cut about why it's too hard to change) > This is all somewhat complex, but it does "work", unlike just going to > 8 digits. But no matter what is done, the changes *within* the > network are only the start of it. The changes required in data bases, > cash registers, modems, alarms, payrolls, and other embedded code that > has 3-3-4 in it will indeed give the Y2K programmers an even bigger > new project to work on. I don't remembering saying anything about why the US should now change their numbering scheme, I simply pointed out that Australia just managed to change theirs with relatively little hassle. If North America want to keep old technology going as an excuse to keep the existing system, then the problems people are experiencing are just going to get worse until the inevitable change occurs. It is really just a matter of how much pain people, (and business) will endure until the situation is resolved. Most North American Telco manufacturers are making equipment which is flexible enough to be used in the other places that have made these changes, so the technology is readily available. Regards, David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:57:54 -0400 Fred Goldstein wrote: > The NANP is Different from what the rest of the world users. It is a > strict DETERMINISTIC-LENGTH plan. EVERY telephone number is in a > 3-3-4 pattern. But there are exceptions when you dial internationally, the switches do pass on whatever number of digits you are dialing. Furthermore, if 3-3-4 is going to be exhausted, will North America have a choice? Sounds to me like they may have to add a digit. Perhaps begin today by adding a 0 to all telephone numbers in existence. Dialing that extra 0 won't hurt, right? And as switches get upgraded to handle 8 digits then the 0 starts to become important. Once all switches are upgraded to handle 8 digits, you can then start to issue phone numbers with a different non-0 last digit. ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:44:13 GMT In article , kamlet@infinet.com says: > In article , Fred Goldstein > wrote: >> This is all somewhat complex, but it does "work", unlike just going to >> 8 digits. But no matter what is done, the changes *within* the >> network are only the start of it. The changes required in data bases, >> cash registers, modems, alarms, payrolls, and other embedded code that >> has 3-3-4 in it will indeed give the Y2K programmers an even bigger >> new project to work on. > I believe in the not too distant future the phone itself will always > encode the number being called, or people will carry around tiny > address book/dialers so you just have to press "Howard" and it will go > through. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had understood the official 'start > up' of the new IP addressing scheme was earlier this month, although > it may be some time before anyone notices it to any degree. PAT] In other words, DNS'ing phone numbers. It'd still require too much money to implement. Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Yet Another "Backhoe" Telecom Outage Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:36:31 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) wrote: >> (Did you know they pipe nitrogen all over Silicon Valley?) sunspace@interlog.com.placeholder (Scott Robert Dawson) wrote: > Why? It's cheaper than building on-site plants. Air Products has a big plant in an industrial area of San Jose or Santa Clara, real close to the Hetch Hetchy aqueduct (I was working on a project involving finding most of the lines which crossed the aqueduct.) The claim was that breaking a nitrogen line would cost on the order of a million dollars -- maybe because they're not a "public utility" and don't have the liability limitations that power, water, gas, etc., do. Imagine being the person who wrecked a major chip-maker's clean room ... Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: Re: Recording ADPCM Files Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 02:21:00 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net ctiguy@my-deja.com wrote: > So the question finally is ... does anyone know of a way to create > ADPCM sound files that sound good when played back over phone > equipment. I expect a hardware card would be the way to go, something > that can accept line-in input although if someone know of a software > package that can convert from WAV to ADPCM and take into account the > phone limitation thats playing the sounds ... that would be good too. Is it the Dialogic cards that require ADPCM or are you running "wrap-around" software that needs this format? I ran into this problem several years ago using Natural Micro Systems cards while building an IVR. We went through the trouble of hiring a voice, paying for studio grade recordings on a cassette and then discovering that the Edify software we used to create the IVR application was incapable of accepting any format voice (wav or otherwise) because all voice messages needed to be input through a phone connected to the NMS cards. The result -- we had to play our high quality voice back on a cheap tape player and record through the mic on the phone. Since our IVR was located in a noisy server room (AC, UPS, etc.) one person had to stand outside the door, dial into the IVR while the other started and stopped the recording procedure on the server. What a mess. However, I do think Edify addressed this issue in later releases so that one could simply input a wav file. Might want to check with your software vendor, or look at some of the low cost IVR development alternatives that work with Dialogic for this capability. Sorry I couldn't be of more help but I know your frustration. jmaddaus@usa.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:03:50 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Digital Big Brother Poses Threat to Consumer Privacy Deborah Solomon, Chronicle Staff Writer Monday, July 26, 1999 San Francisco Chronicle It's 2001 and you're surfing the Net, looking for information on breast cancer to help your mom, who's recently found a lump. You buy a book, check out some Web sites, even go to a chat room on the subject. A few days later, your new employer has some bad news: Your health coverage has been denied because of a ``pre-existing condition'' -- breast cancer. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/07/26/BU56448.DTL ------------------------------ Reply-To: Simon CaiMao From: Simon CaiMao Subject: A Problem About Q.822 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:45:42 +0800 Organization: DSET In Q.822 4.3.2.14, "In some cases the actual values set in the 'counterthresholdAttributeList' or 'gaugethresholdAttributeList' may be different from the requested values for the threshold. In this case, the next lowest threshold value supported by the managed system is used." I wondered what the "next lowest" means. For 'gaugethreshold', there couldn't be a lowest threshold. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:46:16 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California In article , John Nagle wrote: > dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) writes: >> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) contributed the following: >>> What we really need to do is to go to eight digit local numbers, like >>> France and Japan did years ago. >> Australia just recently completed changing to a uniform 8 digit local >> numbering plan with reasonably little inconvenience. > Yes. France and Japan made the transition about a decade ago. It > can be done. It would get us twenty years of stable phone numbers. > The usual transition plan is that it's announced that it's going > to happen about four years out. All existing numbers are translated > to new ones by adding a new first digit which is the same for all > existing numbers, there's a permissive dialing period of a year or > two, and then a hard cutover. It would probably have about as much > impact as an area code split, except that commercial software would be > written to understand the transition. *Sigh* We go through this every few months. No, North America *CANNOT* go to eight-digit numbers. Not in any time frame like four years. Not for any reasonable cost. Think in terms of $150 billion, and THEN add in the costs to end users. In short, ------------------------------ From: cnavarro@wcnet.org (Carl Navarro) Subject: Payphone Surcharges on Wrong Numbers Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 12:04:51 GMT Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Yesterday was the day I snapped. My 800 number is the same as the local number for American Airlines Paging at O'Hare Airport. I've had my 800 number for 12 years, so don't even think of suggesting a number change. The short story is that I now get to pay about 40 cents per call for wrong numbers from payphone customers who believe Airport paging is an 800 number. My carrier says I owe it because I'm responsible for all wrong numbers, but they can either block all payphone calls, or certain area codes. (Great, how about all payphones except from certain area codes!) Anyway, my argument is why should payphone operators benefit from mis-dialings on phone numbers that cost them nothing? This is driving up the cost of 800 service to pre-divestiture levels. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: AT&T Raised Fees Again Date: 27 Jul 1999 14:22:12 GMT In article , thrak@swbell.net says: > AT&T recently raised their PICC and USF fees on my residential > line. They used to be $.85 for PICC and $.93 for USF. Now they're > $1.51 and $.99 respectively. Do they charge business customers these > fees? Is so, do they charge the same as their residential customers? Sprint has done the same: $1.50 for residential customers. That fee is double my monthly average IXC usage. -----------------------------(c) 1999 Matthew Black, all rights reserved-- matthew black | Opinions expressed herein belong to me and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer california state university | network services SSA-180E | e-mail: black at csulb dot edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 6D 14 36 ED 5F 34 C4 B3 long beach, ca 90840 | E9 1E F3 CB E7 65 EE BC ------------------------------ From: bdoreste@telecom-digest.zzn.com (Brian A Doreste) Subject: Re: Best Answering Machine With Caller ID? Logging Calls? Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:59:22 GMT Organization: University of Delaware On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 15:18:17 GMT, stobbe(@)earthlink.net (Tim Stobbe) wrote: > Will any of these machines log all incoming calls? I know there is > some software available to do this, but I would have to leave my > computer running 24/7 while out of town. I was considering the > Microsoft phone, but I found out it will not be supported in > win2000. Figures. Hands down, the Nortel M9516, the M9516CW with call waiting caller id, or the super phone M9617 with the USB connection to your computer are the best digital answering machines with (talking!) caller id. http://www1.nortelnetworks.com/entprods/phones/us/meridian.html Brian A Doreste school email: bdoreste 'at' copland.udel.edu 74 E Cleveland Ave Apt 2 work email: bdoreste 'at' mail.dot.state.de.us Newark, DE 19711-2247 USA Univ of Delaware Civil Engineering Undergraduate Usual disclaimers apply Delaware Dept of Transportation|Traffic Ops/Mgmt ------------------------------ From: bidscan@mypad.com (Frank Pizer) Subject: Re: How to Identify a Wireless Number? Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:43:36 GMT On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:12:24 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom was written: > Do any of the listers have specific knowledge as to how wireless > telephone numbers (as opposed to land line telephone numbers) are > identified in Australia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, > Switzerland, Spain, the U.K., Belgium, etc.? Here in South Africa we have the following "wireless" prefixes. 081 - The old analogue radio-phones from pre-GSM cell days - so far as I know this is now run by the holders of the 082 prefix (if it hasn't been killed off) 082 - GSM network "VODACOM" 083 - GSM network "MTN" There are moves afoot for a third GSM network, and I presume this will be 084. All normal GSM cell calls in this country are "Caller pays". I'm not sure about the 081 Analogue system, but probably the same. Cheers, Frank Pizer ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #255 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 27 23:17:47 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA23448; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:17:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:17:47 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907280317.XAA23448@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #256 TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Jul 99 23:17:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 256 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (TELECOM Digest Editor) eBay Tries to Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco (TELECOM Digest Editor) USF and PICC Charges (Re: AT&T Raised Fees Again) (Linc Madison) 500 & 900 Portability, Toll Free Issues, and 555 Reclamation (Linc Madison) When/When Not to Dial '1' (Jim Sielaff) LD Tel Company ACT (Stan U.) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View on Net Commerce) (J.F. Mezei) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Pete Weiss) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Graeme Thomas) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Steven Sobol) Turkish Pre-Paid Sim Card Without Subscription and GSM (timi@casema.net) Re: No PIC Selection Question (Mike Fox) Re: "Bright Light" POP Spam Filtering: A Bad Idea (Adam Frix) Re: Last Laugh! Dead Cow DOA (Steven W. Smith) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:36:32 PDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The following story, and many more like it are available each day at no charge from http://telecom-digest/news which is our online daily news service. Here is just another example of how corporate America -- which as far as I am concerned has no place on the net anyway -- is seeking to pervert and completely change the way things have always been done here. The purpose of the World Wide Web has always been that everyone could be linked to everyone else. But then along came the big corporations, and they decided they would take over and have things their way. More on this after the article. PAT] W I R E D N E W S - - - - - - - - - - Universal: Don't Link to Us by Oscar S. Cisneros A Web site that aggregates links to movie trailers online has come under fire from a major movie studio that says the links infringe on its copyrights. "Every time someone posts something on the Internet it's now for public viewing and most of the time I'm just pointing to the address," said Jean-Pierre Bazinet, owner of Movie-List. "I don't see how you can copyright or make restrictions on posting an address." Bazinet, whose site features links to externally hosted movie trailers, received a letter from Universal Studios representatives asking him to cease linking to movie trailers on their Web servers. "[Y]ou are not permitted to link to other sites that contain our copyrighted material without our authorization," the company wrote. "Accordingly, you must remove all images from our films as well as links to other sites that have our servers." Movie-List's legal scuffling with Universal began almost six months ago when a Universal representative contacted Bazinet and asked him to quit using the movie studio's digitized movie previews. Bazinet had no objections and removed the trailers from his Web servers and CD-ROM collections. "Then they contacted me and said I wasn't allowed to link to any of their servers containing the trailers -- that I don't understand," he said. "I'm basically sending a user to their servers." Citing a policy against discussing legal matters in action, Universal declined to comment on the matter. Legal experts did comment, however, saying the legal landscape surrounding deep linking, or hyperlinking deep into another's Web page, is fraught with unpaved ways. "The question of deep linking is unsettled in the law right now," said David Hayes, chair of the intellectual property group at the law firm Fenwick West. Since no court has ruled on the issue, a guiding precedent has not been established to govern who has the right to link deep into the Web site of another person or company. Some major Web-site owners contend that because they have a lot invested in their pages they should dictate who can and who can't link into their site. Others, however, contend that they have as much right to direct users to a specific Web page as they do to point out a billboard on the street. "It's a pretty broad issue because, as you know, linking is ubiquitous on the Web," Hayes said. Although there are no major court decisions on record, Hayes said a series of settlements in deep linking cases have established a trend. "They were settled by the defendant agreeing to link only to the main page," he said. For example, when Ticketmaster sued Microsoft for deep linking from its Sidewalk.com site, the software giant eventually backed down. The parties settled out of court, with Microsoft agreeing not to deep link into Ticketmaster's site. Ticketmaster's main complaint was that users hyperlinking deep into its site were missing several banner ads they would have seen if they had entered through the frontdoor, Hayes said. "They felt they were getting harmed in their ad revenues -- they weren't getting as many eyeballs," he said. Microsoft, meanwhile, argued its links were a First Amendment right. Legal experts were watching as Ticketmaster and Microsoft duked it out. Had the companies fought to the end, the decision in their trial might have cleared the fog surrounding the issue. One expert watching the trial was Jeffery Kuester, an Internet law specialist who maintains his own law and technology resource page called KuesterLaw. "The Web's not the Web if you can't link," he said. But where the line should be drawn between the right to link and the right to protect one's intellectual property is for the courts to decide, he added. The trailer links on Movie-List technically point to other servers, but only mark the pages as studio content. Kuester says the average user is likely to be confused, because the trailers appear to be part of Movie-List's pages. Both Kuester and Hayes agreed that while HTML originally facilitated deep linking from one scholar's footnote to the original academic source, people shouldn't abuse it. "I think [restricting deep links] does subvert the philosophy on which the Web was founded," Fenwick's Hayes said. He pointed out that although copy machines were designed to make copies, not all reproductions are legal. Wired News is a real-time news service offering news briefs and in-depth reporting on politics, business, culture, and technology. For the most up-to-date coverage on the digital world, go to ... http://telecom-digest.org/news to read Wired News reports. Copyright 1999 Wired Digital, Inc. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So they openly admit the main problem seems to be if you go directly to their content, they are unable to bombard you with advertising messages on the way. Perhaps they are also unable to sneak that cookie at you as well. Ooooh, they have a real problem don't they! My heart bleeds for them. It would be an entirely different matter if a web site yanked the copyrighted content of some other site back to its own premises, deceptively claimed that it owned the content, etc, or if they put the content up from their own server along with their own advertising, etc. But if you put it on a web server then it is **public** and open for review by anyone who wishes to read it. Universal and a few other major corporations I could name had better come to grips with the way things work on the net. If they do not like it, they are free to shut down their web sites and vanish. One thing I hope netizens will not allow to happen is for Big Business to decide they are going to start setting the rules around here. We are seeing a lot of this already. I feel strongly enough about this issue that I am going to begin a new feature here as soon as I can called /freestuff ... and the way it will work is this: users who wish to do so can supply me with so-called 'deep page' URLs for promotion. On the /freestuff page I will link to that address. There are certain rules to be followed including (1) *do not* claim it is your own work; do not cause any copyright/patent/trademark indicia to be obliterated. (2) Do not send me anything which requires *payment*. (For example, many sites first require payment, then on reciept send you to a deep-page where the presentation is given; ie. porn sites. I do not want that.) I am not interested in depriving an author or creative person of money from the sale of their endeavor, so do not send me those. (3) Do not send me deep pages from Bank One where customer's financial records are available, etc. Yes, they are that stupid at Bank One, but I do not want to invade anyone's privacy. What you *can* send me for the /freestuff page are movie trailers, music videos, radio/television stations which have a specific URL for their .ram/.rpi/.avi output to the net, etc. Any company which has *promotional, public* material on their own web site which you feel is important to share with everyone on the net, without having to wade through a minefield of cookies, banner advertisements, Geocities style pop-up windows and the like is eligible for inclusion. Your short, one paragraph text will accompany the link as a description. It might read like this: what it is links to (what it is) at Rude Corporation. This (type of media) displays (whatever). All copyrights, trademarks, etc belong to the entities named within. Since this URL is connected to the World Wide Web, it is publicly available for viewing by netizens. Rude Corporation does not charge to view this (type of media), and does not require registration or a password to participate at its site. This link is an exercise of my free-speech, pointing to a World Wide Web resource on public display. Any commercial site which does not like my new policy here is free to use javascript to document-refer my link back to their starting page, or redirect my referrals to some snotty reply if that is how they wish to treat their visitors. Any attorney who wishes to sue me is welcome to send service to me at PO Box 765, Junction City, KS 66441-0765. Don't worry, I always sign for my mail. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:22:26 -0400 (EDT) From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: eBay Tries to Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Just one more reason to be very leary about e-commerce. This report appeared in http://telecom-digest.org/news on Tuesday morning. PAT] ------------------ eBay Tries To Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco 10:35 am EDT, 27 July 1999 By Bruce Simpson eBay, the online auction house is trying to hush-up reports of a scam that is forcing many people to part with their items for far less than the amount they might have otherwise received. The scam, called "bid shielding" revolves around the ability for someone to place a very high bid on an item and withdraw it just moments before the auction closes. The fraudster first makes a minimal bid, often only a fraction of what the item is worth and then, using a different identity, makes a bid for far more than the item is actually worth. They now effectively "own" the item -- since it is unlikely that anyone will outbid the higher offer. To complete the fraud, the bidder simply withdraws their high bid moments before the auction closes -- leaving insufficient time for anyone else to better their lower bid. Under the terms of the eBay service, if the low bid exceeds the seller's reserve then they are obliged to complete the sale -- possibly receiving far less than the fair market value they might otherwise have obtained. One eBay user who has fallen victim to this scam is Jason Hamilton who was so outraged that he created http://mars.superlink.net/jason/ebay/ protesting eBay's inability to adequately police this behavior. In what would appear to be an admission by eBay that they are all but powerless to solve the problem, Hamilton quotes an email from the online auctioneer that states: "PLEASE, do not give out the details of this, as it will only cause more users to try it, why add to the workload and potentially cause problems for other sellers." Hamilton believes eBay's attitude is unsatisfactory and suggests that a solution to the problem could be to disallow bidders to retract bids. eBay, although an Internet high-flyer and darling of the stock market has had numerous problems during its brief lifetime -- facing numerous hardware glitches and crashes as well as law suit for patent infringement plus NYC and federal government investigations in relation to potentially illegal transactions through its service. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:58:59 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: USF and PICC charges (Re: AT&T Raised Fees Again) In article , Matthew Black wrote: > In article , thrak@swbell.net says: >> AT&T recently raised their PICC and USF fees on my residential >> line. They used to be $.85 for PICC and $.93 for USF. Now they're >> $1.51 and $.99 respectively. Do they charge business customers these >> fees? Is so, do they charge the same as their residential customers? > Sprint has done the same: $1.50 for residential customers. That fee > is double my monthly average IXC usage. What I found extraordinarily galling is that Telco (101-0297, and no, I *DON'T* mean 1010-297, because not all 101 codes begin with 1010) charges a minimum of 63 cents/month/line for USF on *DIALAROUND* access! I made a whopping total of TWO calls, for a total of 22 cents, and was charged 63 cents in USF charge. I consider that consumer fraud, since Telco did not in fact contribute that 63 cents to any Universal Service Fund. (Their actual contribution was in the neighborhood of ONE CENT.) Not only that, but they retroactively billed me the USF charge for the previous billing cycle and overbilled the federal tax (4 cents tax on 22 cents billing? Wrong!). As for the PICC charge, first of all, some dialaround companies have been billing that, even though it absolutely does not apply. However, the amount was raised and will continue to increase "until the PICC and SLC cover the entire interstate portion of the cost of providing telephone service." Well, excuse me, FCC, but there is no separable interstate cost of providing my local loop. There is an FCC docket open for comments on this subject. I encourage everyone to look at "FCC Opens Inquiry into Flat-Rated L.D. Fees": ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:43:51 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: 500 & 900 Portability, Toll Free Issues, and 555 Reclamation In article , Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > Lord, it must have been late -- did I write 866, 855 and 844? Please > make a correction - it's 844, 833 and 822 ... sorry ... > INC is eyeballing toll free number use ... Responding to an OBF/SNAC > request for INC to release 866, 855 and 844 codes to it > simultaneously, INC asked SNAC to explain the rapid depletion of toll > free numbers, asking for info regarding the usage of codes and why so > many had been used; asked if the Guidelines for Toll Free Number > Administration include any audit provisions and if so, whether an > audit had been scheduled or performed; and asked SNAC to clarify its > request for simultaneous release of three codes for numbering > assignment. I thought that 866 was in fact next in line. I can see perhaps skipping over 855 because of the special status of 800-855-xxxx, but I still don't see the logic of opening three 8NN codes at once, especially since that would leave only two in that sequence. Even if we reserve the other 88X codes, we're still depleting the numbering space pretty rapidly. (It would also raise issues of confusion with ordinary NPAs of the form 8X8, since consumers would have to know that any code beginning with 8 and with two or more *consecutive* identical digits is toll-free, but 8X8 is not toll-free. Hawaii and Los Angeles probably won't pose much of a problem, but Asheville NC, La Jolla, and especially Trinidad & Tobago might. I got a spam today with an 828 number to buy their magnificent product, and I had to stop and think where that was; a consumer faced with 800, 888, 877, 822, 882, etc., could easily think it was toll-free.) I certainly hope that the Coca-Cola Corporation is poised to snap up 822-474-7328 and other like numbers as soon as they are available. (Left as an exercise to the reader... ;^P I'm sure you can come up with a snappier slogan, though.) My alma mater might be interested in 844-372-5867. And Alex Winter might want 833-263-2455, to get top billing for a change. ------------------------------ From: Jim Sielaff Subject: When/When Not to Dial '1' Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 18:37:27 -0400 Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com I work for a large nationwide company which has PBX's in several hundred US cities. My problem has to do with the task of administering local dialing rules in the individual PBX's. For example, in Miami (305) all local calls are 10D (NPA 305, 786, and part of 954) However, a portion of NPA 954 is toll and requires a '1'. Does anyone know of a searchable database which indicates a 'local' or 'toll' call from a particular NPA-NXX? I tried checking out the Bell South web site to see if they would show what is a local and toll call out of Miami -- but no luck! The local phone directory has it but it is outdated before it hits the street. James Sielaff New York, NY phoneman@bway.net ------------------------------ From: stanri@yahooREMOVETHISPART.com (Stan U.) Subject: LD Tel Company ACT Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:54:10 GMT Organization: @Home Network Has anyone had any experience with this long distant company, (Advanced Communications Techniques, Inc) either good or bad. http://advanced-communication.com/ Their rates seem good, and they claim good things. But in these days, who can tell Like everyone else, I hate spam. To reply, remove the "REMOVETHISPART" from the email address. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View on Net Commerce) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:29:13 -0400 Johnnie Leung wrote: > Okay, if someone cleaned out my checking account before I report my > card missing, will the bank refund my money immediately (less the '$50 > maximum liability')? And what about interest charges and penalties as > a result of bounced cheques? With a true EFTPOS card, no because it is your responsability to keep the PIN secret. If however, a VISA check card can be used without a PIN number, then I would expect the bank to handle fraud losses in the ssame was as a real VISA credit card. ------------------------------ From: pete-weiss@psu.edu (Pete Weiss) Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:16:59 -0400 Organization: Penn State University -- Office of Administrative Systems On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:26:29 -0400, Christopher_Herot@lotus.com (Chris Herot) wrote: > Even if you prefer to have your purchases deducted immediately from your > account instead of enjoying the float, I would think twice about carrying > a debit card. In all states your maximum liablity if your credit card is > stolen is $50, even if you never report it as lost. If you do report it > immediately your liability is zero. Most banks will waive the $50 in any > case. The bank immediately cancels the erroneous charges and sends you a > new card. Furthermore, you don't run the risk of "bounced" checks (just lack of credit) and all that that implies. (This assumes that your CC does not automatically debit your checking account at the end of the billing cycle.) Pete ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:43:19 +0100 From: Graeme Thomas Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) In article , Andrew writes > It is standard practice for many restaurants and clubs to pre-authorize > $500 on the credit cards of people who want to run a tab. The local > radio consumer advocate in Atlanta, Clark Howard has gotten > innumerable complaints from people who have bounced checks as a result > of these large authorizations. IIRC it takes about a week for the > authorizations to expire. It's both better and worse than that. The authorizations normally take much longer (45 days is typical) to expire. However, as soon as a real transaction goes though using the authorization code give on the initial auth, the remainder of the funds are unblocked immediately. Graeme Thomas ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: 27 Jul 1999 19:07:02 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:26:29 -0400, Christopher_Herot@lotus.com allegedly said: > With a debit card, your liability is much higher, potentially unlimited. > In Massachusetts, where the state law limits your liability to $50, you > still need to fight with the bank to get your money back. The presumption > is that you spent it until the bank is persuaded that the card was stolen. With a traditional (non-Visa, non-MC) debit card, if the person who took your card doesn't know your PIN, they're not going to get your money anyhow. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ From: Subject: Turkish Pre-Paid Sim Card Without Subscription and GSM Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:52:41 +0200 Hello, I would like to know how to obtain a Turkish Pre-Paid Sim card without a subscription and excluding a mobile phone. Telsim (one of the two mobile operators in Turkey) offers a "Pratik Hat starters Kit" without subscription. This can only be bought attached to a handset whose brand and model is already defined. For this mobile you have to pay extra. http://www.telsim.com.tr/ I already have a GSM suitable for DCS 900-1800 without simlock and a simcard. Thanks for answering. Timicoke E-mail Address(es): timi@casema.net Nederlands: Hallo, Graag zou ik willen weten hoe ik een turkse pre-paid pakket kan krijgen zonder een abonnement en zonder telefoon (te kopen in Turkije). Ik heb daarvoor dus alleen de Sim card met een nieuw nummer nodig. Telsim een van de twee mobiele aanbieders biedt zo'n pakket wel aan onder de naam Pratik Hat maar dan moet je gelijk een telefoon aanschaffen die zij uitkiezen en daarvoor betaal je ook nog apart. De telefoon geschikt voor DCS 900-1800 zonder sim lock heb ik al. Heeft iemand suggesties voor als ik naar Turkije ga. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:27:51 -0400 From: Mike Fox Subject: Re: No PIC Selection Question Ed Ellers wrote: > Linc Madison (LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com) wrote: >> If you do drop it altogether, your local carrier will bill you directly >> for a monthly fee. However, it's significantly lower than $3/month." > I believe it was 53 cents/month. As of my July billing cycle, it just went up to $1.07/month (BellSouth, anyway). Mike "We're not against ideas. We're against people spreading them." (General Augusto Pinochet of Chile) ------------------------------ From: adamf@nospam.columbus.rr.com (Adam Frix) Subject: Re: "Bright Light" POP Spam Filtering: A Bad Idea Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:23:36 -0400 Organization: Road Runner Columbus In article , nospam@elmhurst.msg.net (nospam) wrote: > I have a problem with how they do things, as a system administrator I > block Bright Light and all similar services from any POP server under > my control. Any user who gives out their password to ANY 'untrusted > third party' has to call to find out what their password has been > changed to, or in a corp environment, has an interesting conversation > with their supervisor. You're worried about the user's password being used by unauthorized users to gain access to your network? Is that the *only* security mechanism you have for dialup? User name and password?????? Sounds lame to me. VERY lame. If security is an issue, passwords by themselves suck. Get SecurID. I can give out my network password all day long. And nobody can dial up and become me to get onto our network. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:45:27 MST From: Steven W. Smith Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Dead Cow DOA Granted, even the misinformed have a right to their opinions. It's my suggestion that you may want to become better informed about "Back Orifice" and the cDc. I've downloaded the application and the source code from their site. Unlike the CD, it wasn't infected with anything. If you can pry your foot from your mouth and do some checking from impartial sources, you may be surprised to find that BO2K is exactly what it's advertised to be: a management tool that's "done right", complete with source code. Note also that BO2K doesn't contain any "malicious features" that aren't included in Microsoft's own SMS software. The difference is that BO2K is many orders of magnitude smaller, tighter, more secure (3DES rather than M$'s plaintext) and best of all, Free with Source Code. I'd hoped to give you the URL to a "trade rag" style comparison of several of the comercial products that compete with BO2K but I've misplaced it -- my imprecise recollection is that SMS costs about $900 and uses 15MB or so of disk space. BO2K is free, under 1MB. BTW, wasn't it Microsoft who gave Word macro viruses their big break by distributing many thousands of infected CDs to their _paying_ customers? :-D Have a nice day, Steven W. Smith, Systems Programmer Glendale Community College. Glendale Az. syssws@gc.maricopa.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #256 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jul 28 11:22:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id LAA13327; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:22:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:22:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907281522.LAA13327@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #257 TELECOM Digest Wed, 28 Jul 99 11:22:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 257 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) (JF Mezei) Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) (T Horsley) Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) (L Madison) Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) (Goldstein) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View on Net Commerce) (Sam) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Geoff Dyer) Re: 500 & 900 Portability, Toll Free Issues, and 555 (Judith Oppenheimer) Secret Surfing (Ralph Seberry) Re: Yet Another "Backhoe" Telecom Outage (Geoff Dyer) Re: Assignment of Country Code for Palestine (Linc Madison) Re: Payphone Surcharges on Wrong Numbers (Linc Madison) Re: USF and PICC Charges (Eli Mantel) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:42:44 -0400 An addition to my suggestion of making phone numbers IP adresses: With a single IP address per "home", one could provide a whole suite of services on the single line by defining various ports. ( port xx for inbound voice calls, port yy for inbound faxes, and standard IP ports for the IP applications (pop, smtp, web etc). Tony Pelliccio wrote: > In other words, DNS'ing phone numbers. It'd still require too much money > to implement. But it is already implemented for 800 numbers, isn't it? Just a question of performance/capacity and having proper distribution. David Clayton wrote: > If North America want to keep old technology going as an excuse to keep > the existing system, then the problems people are experiencing are just > going to get worse until the inevitable change occurs. I agree. I think it might be simpler to do one big change over a period of a year or so (adding a digit) then going on with the constant number reshufflings that have become impossible to keep track of. How much do these constant changes cost industry in reprinting stationary, reprinting adresse books etc etc ? By the time the inevitable comes up and numbering must be dramatically changed, how much will industry have wasted on constant area code changes only to have to begin again with a (finally) permanent solution? Now, I am wondering. Could North America change its numbering plan to something *really* different. How about making telephone numbers IP adresses in the new IP adressing scheme? The possibilities in the future would be very interesting if smart phones were just IP nodes. ------------------------------ From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Subject: Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) Date: 27 Jul 1999 16:44:04 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services > But there are exceptions when you dial internationally, the switches > do pass on whatever number of digits you are dialing. Hey! That would work! All we have to do is add a new country. There's the good old ordinary NANP USA that we have today, then there's the flexible dialing new and improved USA which you dial numbers in by making what looks like international calls if your number is in one version of the USA and the number you're calling is in the other. >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have suggested for quite some time that just as we have repeatedly divided existing area codes into several parts over the years we now do the same to the USA country code of '1'. For the sake of argument, put the eastern USA into 'country code' '11' and the western USA into '12'. Instead of 'country code' it would be referred to as 'zone code'. To dial within our own 'zone'just dial the seven, ten or eleven digits as always. To dial to the other zone, treat it technically like an 'international call' and dial 011 plus 11 or 011 plus 12 and the ten digit number. This would resemble what happens when someone in another country presently calls the USA: they dial the code in their country which indicates an inter- national call is being placed, plus the existing USA code of '1' and the desired ten digit number. This would take no hardware changes in the switches and very little software changing. The switches would think of it as just another 'country' that was recently dialable. Consider it a lot like the change in recent years from the use of '7' covering all of the former Soviet Union to a bunch of other codes covering the various former parts of the S.U. which now have their own codes instead. It would happen a lot the same way for the transition. Permissive dialing would allow either way of addressing ('1' or '11'/'12') to work for a period of time. After permissive dialing had ended, the remaining supply of unused codes would be parcelled out to each 'zone' for use according to the original intention for that number until the existing supply was exhausted. Then -- hopefully at least a few years away -- each 'zone' would be free to begin replicating existing codes from the other zone. This would also solve the 'what to do with the Caribbean islands' problem since instead of just having country codes 11 and 12, it could easily enough go all the way up to 19 with Canada getting one for present needs, and one to expand with; the islands getting one for present needs and one to expand with; and the USA getting the remaining five. Canada would have no complaints, since the code '1' had ceased to exist for everyone at the same time. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:05:51 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) In article , J.F. Mezei wrote: > Fred Goldstein wrote: >> The NANP is Different from what the rest of the world users. It is a >> strict DETERMINISTIC-LENGTH plan. EVERY telephone number is in a >> 3-3-4 pattern. > But there are exceptions when you dial internationally, the switches > do pass on whatever number of digits you are dialing. > Furthermore, if 3-3-4 is going to be exhausted, will North America > have a choice? Sounds to me like they may have to add a digit. > Perhaps begin today by adding a 0 to all telephone numbers in > existence. Dialing that extra 0 won't hurt, right? And as switches > get upgraded to handle 8 digits then the 0 starts to become > important. Once all switches are upgraded to handle 8 digits, you can > then start to issue phone numbers with a different non-0 last digit. See . Really. Please read that page before making any suggestions as to how we could go to 8-digit numbers, because most of them have already been dealt with. In short, the biggest problem with this technique is that it provides remarkably little increase in capacity, because now, instead of wasting numbers 10,000 at a time for each little CLEC in a rate center, we'd waste those numbers 100,000 at a time. The only way you get a serious increase in numbering capacity is by adding the digit to the FRONT of the existing 7-digit number. The other issue, of course, is the "once all [equipment is] upgraded" (it isn't just telco switches), because that process will take many, many years, in large measure due to amortization schedules. Doing it overnight just doesn't make economic sense. End of discussion. Bottom line: we're splitting and overlaying and adding new area codes all over the place because it is CHEAPER than moving prematurely to longer numbers. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:22:41 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) Volume 19 Issue 255 had a few replies to my screed against eight-digit numbers. Here's a consolidated response. (And thanks to Linc, too, for his informative web site.) > From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) > If North America want to keep old technology going as an excuse to keep > the existing system, then the problems people are experiencing are just > going to get worse until the inevitable change occurs. > Most North American Telco manufacturers are making equipment which is > flexible enough to be used in the other places that have made these > changes, so the technology is readily available. American word processors can sometimes spell-check English and French, just not both at one time. Our switch vendors may have support for Euro-code, but it's incompatible with the native mode. Nor is there need for it. > It is really just a matter of how much pain people, (and business) will > endure until the situation is resolved. There are fixes, which I've explained, that stick with deterministic length and support en-bloc signaling. Telling us we need to do it the VERY hard way, when there's a much easier way, is just foolish. > From: J.F. Mezei >> The NANP is Different from what the rest of the world users. It is a >> strict DETERMINISTIC-LENGTH plan. EVERY telephone number is in a >> 3-3-4 pattern. > But there are exceptions when you dial internationally, the switches > do pass on whatever number of digits you are dialing. Yes, but that's a specific escape-from-NANPA mechanism. It requires # dialing at the end of the number, or critical timing. Neither is # supportable for domestic calls, for various commonsense reasons. > Furthermore, if 3-3-4 is going to be exhausted, will North America > have a choice? Sounds to me like they may have to add a digit. As I noted, there will be more digits. 4-4-4 is most likely, initially with "9" in the second position of the NPA to distinguish from 3-digit NPAs, which will have to have a "permissive" time (probably in years) before they're shut off. > Perhaps begin today by adding a 0 to all telephone numbers in > existence. Dialing that extra 0 won't hurt, right? Of course it will. It's not part of the plan. And remember, we're not short of NUMBERS. We're short of PREFIX CODES. A 3-3-5 plan buys next to nothing. The short-term plan, which has already been ordered in Chicagoland and may be adopted in many places soon (if not nationwide), is to allow prefix codes to be shared among carriers based on thousands-blocks. This changes assignment from 3-3-4 to 3-4-3, dramatically slowing down code exhaust. This SHOULD have been ordered nationwide two years ago, when the software was in place to support it (at least in the tandems where it counts the most). > From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) > In other words, DNS'ing phone numbers. It'd still require too much money > to implement. Not hardly too much money -- in fact, it's already done! Local Number Portability is quite a bit like DNS. You have to distinguish between three things: NAME - how somebody is referenced by humans ADDRESS - how something is referenced by machine ROUTE - a path to get there A phone number was originally all three. The NPA or NXX was indexed into a route table, and the last four digits were the Terminal Address at the destination switch. No separate address. With 800 numbers, we got logical, albeit numeric, names. They are indexed to find a terminating carrier, who indexes them into a terminal, anywhere, with no route implications. Hence 1-800-BAR-SENT. With LNP, all local numbers are really just names. A database identifies which CO switch terminates 617-498-5920. The subscriber changes carrier and keeps the number. ------------------------------ From: Sam Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View on Net Commerce) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:40:48 -0400 Jon Carpenter wrote: > Robert Wiegand wrote: >> Derek Balling wrote: >>> Why would you REFUSE the Visa Check card? That I don't understand. It >>> still functions for all intents and purposes as an ATM card, and if >>> you never use it as a Visa card, then you never open yourself up to >>> the alleged problems associated with that. You could just cover up the >>> Visa logo with electrical tape and it would function identically to >>> the "non-Visa" ATM card you love. >> It functions identically to an ATM card until you have it stolen. Then >> there is a big difference. You don't need a PIN number to use the Check >> Card. By the time you get the card canceled they can clean out your >> checking account. > But you're protected just like you are for a credit card. This is on the > MasterCard web site at > http://www.mastercard.com/ourcards/consumer/wave.html: > And your debit card will be good to you. You're in the driver's seat > should your card be lost or stolen. If you notice your debit card > missing, notify your card issuer immediately. > The two major payment card companies limit your liability to a maximum > of $50 and it could be as low as zero if you report your card missing > immediately. But, it's up to you to safeguard your debit card and > notify the issuer as soon as you discover it missing. Well, you should get your $50/card back after you spend the time to explain that the card was stolen, the charges were made after the card was stolen, and the bank does its investigation. I'm sure that they'll get right on that immediately and you won't have to explain yourself ten times after waiting on hold countless times. Right. Unless you have fantastic service, this is pretty lousy, meanwhile you could even bounce a check if the money that was supposed to pay it was stolen via your checkcard. No thanks. I'll stick with regular, online (PIN) only debit cards, and credit cards. Plus credit cards give you a helluva lot more float then checkcards. Andrew wrote: > With a credit card, the moment a charge is authorized, your credit > line is reduced by the amount of the authorization. The moment your > VISA check card is authorized, funds in your checking account are > frozen to cover the authorization. The funds might sit in your account > until the charge is posted, but you can't touch it and the bank won't > use the frozen funds to cover any checks that might come in before the > charge posts. > It is standard practice for many restaurants and clubs to pre-authorize > $500 on the credit cards of people who want to run a tab. The local > radio consumer advocate in Atlanta, Clark Howard has gotten > innumerable complaints from people who have bounced checks as a result > of these large authorizations. IIRC it takes about a week for the > authorizations to expire. That is completely correct information for VISA Checkcards. For Mastercard MasterMoney offline (offline meaning that it goes through the mastercard network, not a debit network like cirrus or Honor) Cards, there is a credit line for such an occasion. Unlike VISA, MC will not lock your funds when a transaction is authorized. If you withdrawl the funds, it will use the credit line and charge you any interest as well. This is why you need to get a credit line linked for a Mastercard debit card account. That is the main difference between VISA and MC debit products. ------------------------------ From: gldyer-nospam@geocities.com (Geoff Dyer) Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:26:23 GMT On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:14:32 -0400, in comp.dcom.telecom J.F. Mezei wrote: > If countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand (the later two well > before Canada) can get their act together and present a unified nationwide > EFTPOS network, how come the USA hasn't done it yet ? It took a while in Australia. I think we had two separate EFTPOS networks back in the 80s, and my credit union ATM card wasn't usable at all outlets for a few years. The ATM networks also took a while to reach a reasonable level of integration (and I'm pretty sure there are *still* one or two minor banks whose ATMs don't accept all cards). I suspect our banking environment aided early integration. Most credit unions got their card systems integrated *very* quickly, and there are just *four* major, nation-wide banks and a handful of smaller ones (usually covering one or two states). Geoff (to e-mail me, remove any instances of "-nospam" from my address) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:43:02 -0400 From: Judith Oppenheimer Organization: ICB Toll Free News / WhoSells800.com Subject: Re: 500 & 900 Portability, Toll Free Issues, and 555 Reclamation From: Linc Madison wrote: >> Responding to an OBF/SNAC >> request for INC to release 844, 833 and 822 codes to it >> simultaneously, INC asked SNAC to explain the rapid depletion of toll >> free numbers, asking for info regarding the usage of codes and why so >> many had been used ... > I thought that 866 was in fact next in line. 866 IS next in line, scheduled for April 2000, with 855 to follow in July ... fyi, SNAC had also asked that they be released simultaneously, and was turned down by the industry for operational reasons ... My posting above referred to the most recent SNAC request to INC, which is looking past 866 and 855 in 2000, to 844, 833 and 822 in 2002 ... Hence the INC reply ... Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News http://icbtollfree.com tel;cell:917 406-4298 tel;fax:209 391-9400 tel;work:212 684-7210 email;internet:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:26:49 PDT From: Ralph Seberry Reply-To: ralph.seberry@computer.org Subject: Secret Surfing I experimented with your anonymous surfing offering: http://telecom-digest.org/secret-surfer.html which I liked, although I had to remember that it steals all cookies, since some pages won't work at all. In similar vein, I found some links that may be of use. "Proxys 4 All" (http://proxys4all.cgi.net) has a lot of information about proxies, including their top ten "Anonymous Proxies" at http://proxys4all.cgi.net/topten.html (sorry, TELECOM Digest didn't make it -- yet!) Another resource is at: http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/research/proxies.htm which has links to all sorts of proxies, including pointers to open-source proxies from http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/research/sorm.htm#Software which you might be able to use to make yours even better. Regards, Ralph ------------------------------ From: gldyer-nospam@geocities.com (Geoff Dyer) Subject: Re: Yet Another "Backhoe" Telecom Outage Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:26:19 GMT On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:36:31 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom anthony@alphageo.com wrote: > The claim was that breaking a nitrogen line would cost on the order of > a million dollars -- maybe because they're not a "public utility" and > don't have the liability limitations that power, water, gas, etc., do. > Imagine being the person who wrecked a major chip-maker's clean room. In Sydney, Australia, freeway construction required relocation of a short section of the PacRim cable, linking Australia to New Zealand and beyond. (A convenient zig-zag at that part of the route meant relocation was *all* that was required.) I happened to overhear an anecdote about this: Apparently the contractors contacted Telstra (cable owner, and Australia's dominant telco), wanting to know what damages would be payable in the event of problems during relocation. They were told they really didn't want to know; just don't let it happen. Upon pushing for an answer they were told by Telstra the bill would probably start at about A$ 1 million (somewhere around US$ 650,000) ... a minute. I believe extreme care was taken. Geoff (to e-mail me, remove any instances of "-nospam" from my address) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:30:23 GMT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Assignment of Country Code for Palestine In article , Betty Cockrell wrote: > I am trying to get some information on the country code assignment for > Palestine. Has one been assigned yet? Assigned, yes. Implemented, no. The new country code for Palestine will be 970, at some yet-to-be-determined date. I sent a suggestion to the Israeli Ministry of Telecommunications (or name to that effect) that the interests of long-term peace and stability in the region would best be served by having a coordinated dialing plan between Israel and Palestine, similar to the plan used in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. While it would be possible (or perhaps even required) to dial the appropriate +970 or +972 from other countries, calls between Israel and Palestine would continue to be dialed in the same manner they are today. Of course, a caller in Israel should be permitted to dial +970 to call Palestine, or +972 for the reverse. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:09:57 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Payphone Surcharges on Wrong Numbers In article , Carl Navarro wrote: > Yesterday was the day I snapped. > My 800 number is the same as the local number for American Airlines > Paging at O'Hare Airport. I've had my 800 number for 12 years, so > don't even think of suggesting a number change. > The short story is that I now get to pay about 40 cents per call for > wrong numbers from payphone customers who believe Airport paging is an > 800 number. My carrier says I owe it because I'm responsible for all > wrong numbers, but they can either block all payphone calls, or > certain area codes. (Great, how about all payphones except from > certain area codes!) > Anyway, my argument is why should payphone operators benefit from > mis-dialings on phone numbers that cost them nothing? This is driving > up the cost of 800 service to pre-divestiture levels. This is just one of the reasons I remain adamant that the FCC decision to make toll-free payphone compensation a per-call charge was flat wrong. Make it a penny a minute, maybe with a nickel minimum. That way if I talk to Aunt Whatsit for an hour and a half on my calling card, the payphone owner gets a reasonable payment for use of the equipment, but if I make a twenty-second call to a pager, it doesn't drive the cost up so high that the pager company blocks payphones. It really is a simple question, but the FCC doesn't seem to be interested in creating a system that works to the benefit of the consumer. ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: USF and PICC Charges Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 04:39:05 GMT Linc Madison wrote: > ... Telco ... charges a minimum of 63 cents/month/line for USF on > *DIALAROUND* access! I made a whopping total of TWO calls, for a total > of 22 cents, and was charged 63 cents in USF charge. ... Not only > that, but they ... overbilled the federal tax (4 cents tax on 22 > cents billing? Wrong!). But the PICC and USF fees are obligations of the long distance carrier, not the customer. The carrier doesn't have to pass these charges along to you in this manner, but you have to pay tax on whatever portion they do. Thus you were billed 4 cents on an 85 cent bill, which is about right. > There is an FCC docket open for comments on this subject. > I encourage everyone to look at "FCC Opens Inquiry into > Flat-Rated L.D. Fees"... IMO, the FCC is a "partner in crime" with the long distance carriers. First, the FCC imposed the PICC fees as part of a "revenue-neutral" reduction in per-minute access fees and believed the carriers who promised to pass the rate reductions on to customers, but instead merely added the PICC fees to customer bills without necessarily lowering rates, and on top of that, the FCC gave the carriers permission to pass these charges through, without even having to file new tariffs. The precedent having been set that such government-mandated charges could be passed on to the customers as a separate line item, the carriers began playing this game of lying about the rates, treating these add-ons as if they were taxes (and I realize that the USF charge is really a tax, but that's a rant for another time) and thus not including them in their advertised rates. As for charging fixed amounts for the USF, it may just be that the marketing folks decided that too many people didn't understand this percentage add-on, especially when they already had to deal with the fixed PICC charge, so that some carriers like Telco and AT&T decided to impose it as a flat charge. Had the FCC never allowed such charges to be separately itemized, the carriers would just have buried it all in their rates along with the other costs of doing business, and we wouldn't have a situation where you can't really find out what the rates are without asking the Customer Service Reps twenty questions and probably getting the wrong answers anyway. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #257 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jul 28 13:00:29 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA17426; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:00:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:00:29 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907281700.NAA17426@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #258 TELECOM Digest Wed, 28 Jul 99 13:00:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 258 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (Jeremy M. Posner) Suits Challenge Net Bet Debt (Monty Solomon) Internet Sites Sell Personal Info (Monty Solomon) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Steven Sobol) Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) (Alan Boritz) VISA Authorizations (Joey Lindstrom) 56k and Portmaster 3 (Jeff Dennison) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Daniel Ganek) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jposner@panix.com (Jeremy M. Posner) Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:42:52 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So they openly admit the main problem > seems to be if you go directly to their content, they are unable to > bombard you with advertising messages on the way. Perhaps they are > also unable to sneak that cookie at you as well. Ooooh, they have a > real problem don't they! My heart bleeds for them. It would be an > entirely different matter if a web site yanked the copyrighted > content of some other site back to its own premises, deceptively > claimed that it owned the content, etc, or if they put the content > up from their own server along with their own advertising, etc. > But if you put it on a web server then it is **public** and open for > review by anyone who wishes to read it. Universal and a few other > major corporations I could name had better come to grips with the > way things work on the net. If they do not like it, they are free > to shut down their web sites and vanish. One thing I hope netizens > will not allow to happen is for Big Business to decide they are going > to start setting the rules around here. We are seeing a lot of this > already. > I feel strongly enough about this issue that I am going to begin a > new feature here as soon as I can called /freestuff ... and the way > it will work is this: users who wish to do so can supply me with > so-called 'deep page' URLs for promotion. On the /freestuff page I > will link to that address. There are certain rules to be followed > including (1) *do not* claim it is your own work; do not cause any > copyright/patent/trademark indicia to be obliterated. (2) Do not > send me anything which requires *payment*. (For example, many sites > first require payment, then on reciept send you to a deep-page where > the presentation is given; ie. porn sites. I do not want that.) > I am not interested in depriving an author or creative person of > money from the sale of their endeavor, so do not send me those. > (3) Do not send me deep pages from Bank One where customer's financial > records are available, etc. Yes, they are that stupid at Bank One, > but I do not want to invade anyone's privacy. > What you *can* send me for the /freestuff page are movie trailers, > music videos, radio/television stations which have a specific URL for > their .ram/.rpi/.avi output to the net, etc. Any company which has > *promotional, public* material on their own web site which you feel > is important to share with everyone on the net, without having to > wade through a minefield of cookies, banner advertisements, Geocities > style pop-up windows and the like is eligible for inclusion. Your > short, one paragraph text will accompany the link as a description. As someone who runs a site (that happens to have video of movie trailers, by legal arrangement with the studios), I feel compelled to take issue with some of your assertions, although I certainly agree with the brunt of them. The site I run has a very large library of video, including both original material and clips from films (again, used with the permission of the producers or distributors). When a user of our site calls up a piece of video, it comes up within some graphics on the screen. There is also some hyper-linked text along with the graphics. So, if a user were to go to the URL http://www.filmscouts.com/scripts/proj.cfm?Type=Caught&Format=RV&Rate=I&File=mys-men/sti-reuc they would see RealVideo of an interview with a couple of the actors from Mystery Men, the latest release from Universal. Under the video, would be links to pages with lists of content relating to each of the actors in the interview, as well as a link to more information about the film. I have no problem with people deep-linking directly to the page with the video, as I certainly agree that deep-linking is one of the things that makes the web great. I have spent a great deal of time and effort making as much information as possible readily available to those who enter the site from places other than the front page, as deep links from other sites do represent a very significant portion of our traffic. Someone could enter our site on any page and stumble across any number of interviews with people in whom they might be interested. (And no, we don't track specific users, just hits on specific pages.) However, when another site creates a .ram file that points to the RealVideo on our server to circumvent the graphics we use (or link to the non-embedded version of the RealVideo), they are not only sending users straight to the video in which they're interested (which is a perfectly acceptable thing to do), but they are making it impossible for that user to then find related information on our site which might similarly interest them. For example, a user might be referred to an interview with Geoffrey Rush about Mystery Men. If they go to see that video at http://www.filmscouts.com/scripts/proj.cfm?Type=Caught&Format=RV&Rate=I&File=mys-men/geo-rus then they can follow a link to http://www.filmscouts.com/scripts/person.cfm?Person=182 which has a list of all of our content relating to Mr. Rush, including two full RealVideo interviews with him, some Quicktime clips of him, as well as links to reviews of some of his films. If the link is designed to circumvent the embedded video, the user misses out on the opportunity to see the other pieces in which they might be interested. I have taken the time to design things so that there are multiple routes back to other content on the site in order to accommodate users who arrive through deep links. I would appreciate it if those sites that include deep links would not go to great lengths to circumvent those accommodations. | Jeremy M. Posner | "The internet? Is that thing still around?" | | jposner@panix.com | -Homer Simpson | | (212) 426-7967 | http://www.panix.com/~jposner/ | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But you see, Jeremy, you are one of the good guys around here, and that is what makes this entire proposition so difficult to implement, at least in an ethical way. You are not driven by greed; you do not collect a lot of personal data and then proceed to spam everyone who visits your site; and you have gone to a lot of trouble -- believe me, I know! -- in setting up a wonderful presentation that is *best entered through the front door* and viewed in the context you have presented it. At the very least, if a user was specifically seeking some information presented on one of your deep-pages, the user should accept the entire page, and really there would be no reason not to accept the entire page since you provide all the navigation tools, etc they need, and I suppose no one visiting has to worry much about what they say or what 'evidence' of their visit they leave behind. I feel the same way here. I'd love to see everyone enter this site via the front page then go off to wherever, but it is not right in my opinion to put that sort of an obstacle in the way. Personally, I am happy to see users show up from wherever, and as a result I try to make each page stand alone on its own merits, with links to at least the front page or other often-requested pages, etc. But you and I and many other webmasters do not become obtrusive in the process. Given my 'druthers, if visiting your site meant that on my arrival you dropped a popup window right in front of me with a commercial message; you got right up in my face and told me since I had not registered at your front page you were going to drag me off there to do so before anything else; or you routinely took several minutes to load all two hundred plus graphics while I sat here cooling my heels, then my inclination would be to just go fetch your .ram, .rpm, or .avi file, and pipe it through my own plug-in on this end and save myself the bother. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:35:17 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Suits Challenge Net Bet Debt Plaintiffs say that laws ban collection via credit cards. David E. Rovella The National Law Journal August 2, 1999 Despite pending congressional legislation that would ban Internet gambling, plaintiffs' lawyers have launched a series of federal class actions aimed at holding the high rollers of the credit card industry responsible for the online gambling losses of consumers. http://www.lawnewsnet.com/stories/A3745-1999Jul23.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lauren Weinstein phrased this very succinctly in his 'Vortex Daily Reality Report' for Tuesday, July 27. He asks how people would be foolish enough to give out their credit card number to strangers over the net and assume that the wagering site was being run honestly in any event. You can listen to Lauren's five times per week audio commentary here at this site by tuning your browser to http://telecom-digest.org/news/reality.html or by visiting his site at http://www.vortex.com and after hearing what Lauren has to say for himself that day, check out the rest of /news for interesting stories and features. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 01:59:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Internet Sites Sell Personal Info WASHINGTON (AP) -- Private information unwittingly released by Internet users is not protected under federal guidelines because few Web sites adhere to them, according to a study released Tuesday. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Internet-Privacy.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Whenever we link to the {New York Times} website, I am advised we are supposed to include the notation 'you are required to register' as part of each link to them. Anyway, what else is old news? PAT] ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards (was Moderator's View On Net Commerce) Date: 28 Jul 1999 04:02:56 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:43:19 +0100, graeme@graemet.demon.co.uk allegedly said: > In article , Andrew > writes >> It is standard practice for many restaurants and clubs to pre-authorize >> $500 on the credit cards of people who want to run a tab. The local >> radio consumer advocate in Atlanta, Clark Howard has gotten >> innumerable complaints from people who have bounced checks as a result >> of these large authorizations. IIRC it takes about a week for the >> authorizations to expire. > It's both better and worse than that. The authorizations normally take > much longer (45 days is typical) to expire. It varies widely. Depends on which card and which processor. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: VISA Check Cards Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:50:37 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , Ed Ellers wrote: > Andrew (andrew@3.1415926.org) wrote: > "It is standard practice for many restaurants and clubs to pre- > authorize $500 on the credit cards of people who want to run a > tab. The local radio consumer advocate in Atlanta, Clark Howard has > gotten innumerable complaints from people who have bounced checks as a > result of these large authorizations. IIRC it takes about a week for > the authorizations to expire." > There have also been reports of this sort of thing being done by car > rental companies when a customer declines the "loss damage waiver" > that the companies sell as an option -- which often puts the customer > very close to his credit limit, at the worst possible time. That's exactly what Enterprise did to me, in addition to rejecting American Express car rental insurance coverage. Seems to be corporate policy, at least in New Jersey. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:54:20 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: VISA Authorizations On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 23:17:47 -0400 (EDT), Graeme Thomas wrote: >> It is standard practice for many restaurants and clubs to pre-authorize >> $500 on the credit cards of people who want to run a tab. The local >> radio consumer advocate in Atlanta, Clark Howard has gotten >> innumerable complaints from people who have bounced checks as a result >> of these large authorizations. IIRC it takes about a week for the >> authorizations to expire. > It's both better and worse than that. The authorizations normally take > much longer (45 days is typical) to expire. However, as soon as a real > transaction goes though using the authorization code give on the initial > auth, the remainder of the funds are unblocked immediately. Here's my story, involving my Toronto Dominion Bank "GM" Visa card. A few months back, I was getting close to my credit limit -- I put most of my working expenses on the card so I tend to run it up to limit and then pay it down to zero, then repeat. Anyways, I still had about $250 clear on the card going into the final weekend before pay cycle (when I'd pay down the card to zero again). Over a four day span, I decided to gas up (four times) at a new unmanned gas station that just opened up here in Calgary, run by Esso. No cash sales at this place because there's no PEOPLE at this place -- you simply drive up, stick your credit card into the pump, wait for your authorization, then pump your gas. When yer done, you grab your receipt and drive away. Convenient, and they gave you a 1-cent per litre discount. It's also the closest station to my home. Here's the problem: when their system preauthorizes your card, they do so in the amount of $75. However, unlike the situation you describe, it takes three BUSINESS DAYS (remember, this was a weekend) for these authorizations to "expire", EVEN THOUGH at the end of the transaction, they had a lower dollar amount that they theoretically COULD send on to Visa. IE: they preauthorized me for $75, I pumped $20, so why not send along that $20 charge immediately and expire the preauthorization for $75? They don't do this. So, innocently, I filled up four times, on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. The first three days, the amounts were around $20. On Monday, I put $3.50 worth of gas in. A total of around $65, which should have left me with $185 left on my credit limit. On Tuesday morning, I went to gas up again (this time at a different station, one with actual people). I handed over my credit card, and the underpaid clerk swiped it through the machine. "I'm sorry, sir, your card's been declined." I was absolutely stunned. There's five people in line behind me trying to buy stuff, I'm standing there with a worthless piece of plastic and no way to pay for my fuel as I didn't have cash on me. Luckily, the manager walked in at that moment. I explained the situation and since he recognized me as a regular customer, he agreed to let me come back later to pay - which I did, running home for some cash and returning immediately to clear the debt. If not for that bit of luck, I'm not sure what I woulda done. I drove back home, picked up the phone, called the TD bank, and asked what's up. They told me about the multiple authorizations for $75 - and that's ALL they knew, that I'd been preauthorized for $75. They did NOT have the amounts of the EXACT charges (ie: the three $20-somethings and the $3.50). I hung up, picked up the phone again, called Esso, and screamed my freakin' head off at them. Finally I calmed down enough to realize that the guy was asking for my name and address. I gave it, and hung up, still very pissed. About a week later, an envelope arrived in my mailbox, containing two $10 free gas certificates redeemable at any Esso station (but, of course, only at Esso stations that actually had people running them, their auto-pumps don't accept 'em). The guy at Esso was very sorry, but said that's just how the banks work things and there was nothing he could do about it - indeed, I was far from the first person to phone and complain about this, but the banks pretty much had guns pointed at their heads telling 'em "this is how we'll do things". I called TD Bank back and explained to 'em what the guy at Esso said. I got lots of humming and hawing and "I'm not sure about that" and never did get a straight answer. The upshot is that nowadays, I only gas up at stations that have 24-hour attendants and I never use the "pay at the pump" option. I fill up, then head into the kiosk and pay with my plastic. Occasionally they ask me why I don't just pay at the pump. I smile and say "cuz I'm trying to save your job." :-) From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom Email: Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU or joey@lindstrom.com Phone: +1 403 313-JOEY FAX: +1 413 643-0354 (yes, 413 not 403) Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU A King's favorite, lavished with jewels, is proud of her "fallen" state; it is the poor drab on the street, renting her body for pennies, who is ashamed of her trade. She is a failure and she knows it. -- Maureen Johnson, "To Sail Beyond The Sunset" (Robert Heinlein) ------------------------------ From: Jeff Dennison Subject: 56k and Portmaster 3 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:38:59 -0400 Organization: Paradyne Corporation I was wondering if there is a particular dial-up string that needs to be configured in Windows dial-up networking that will allow USR (or other) modems to connect with our Portmaster 3 at 56K. All of the ports on the PM3 are set to the max speed (64k), but the max speed users are able to connect at is 28.8. The same user can connect to our corp. IBM isp account at least 44k. I have run into this in the past with other dial-in servers and it was a dial-up string that fixed the problem. Thanks for any help you may have. Jeff Dennison Paradyne Corp. ------------------------------ From: Daniel Ganek Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:45:35 -0400 Organization: Radionics, Inc. Jim Sielaff wrote: > I work for a large nationwide company which has PBX's in several > hundred US cities. My problem has to do with the task of administering > local dialing rules in the individual PBX's. For example, in Miami > (305) all local calls are 10D (NPA 305, 786, and part of 954) However, > a portion of NPA 954 is toll and requires a '1'. Does anyone know of a > searchable database which indicates a 'local' or 'toll' call from a > particular NPA-NXX? I tried checking out the Bell South web site to > see if they would show what is a local and toll call out of Miami -- but > no luck! The local phone directory has it but it is outdated before it > hits the street. This is probably one of my biggest pet peeves about US dialing. I also live in Mass where the PUC has some really weird ideas about dialing 1 for toll calls. Mass has seven digit, ten digit and eleven digit dialing sequences. Local never dial 1, toll always dial 1; BUT if you're on a plan, toll calls aren't always toll calls!!! If a local call has a different area code you can optionally dial 1. Why can't the FCC mandate that 10 digit dialing ALWAYS works? (My other pet peeve about NYNEX (Bell Atlantic) is that the you get the SAME message when you make a dialing mistake. "Please do not dial 1 for local calls, dial 1 plus area code plus number for calls outside your dialing loacal dialing area." I, of course, can never remember if I dialed 1 or not. So I end up dialing again to figure what my original mistake was and half the time have to dial again. I remember the first time I came across this message. I dialed what I thought was a local call and got the message but hung up before she got to the second part. I kept dialing seven digits a half a dozen times.) dan ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #258 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 29 15:08:17 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA05504; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:08:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:08:17 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907291908.PAA05504@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #259 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Jul 99 15:08:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 259 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) (Al Varney) Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) (Wineburgh) Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) (J. Thomas) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (nospam@elmhurst.msg.net) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (J.F. Mezei) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (Ed Ellers) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (Cortland Richmond) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (Art Walker) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (James Bellaire) Re: eBay Tries to Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco (Gary Pratt) eBay Fraudulent Bidding Warning (David Massey) Re: eBay Tries to Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco (Kim Brennan) Re: Last Laugh! Dead Cow DOA (Kim Brennan) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (John R. Levine) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Ed Ellers) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) Date: 28 Jul 1999 16:59:54 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , [on using International Dialing as an NANPA growth mechanism] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have suggested for quite some time > that just as we have repeatedly divided existing area codes into > several parts over the years we now do the same to the USA country > code of '1'. For the sake of argument, put the eastern USA into > 'country code' '11' and the western USA into '12'. Instead of 'country > code' it would be referred to as 'zone code'. To dial within our own > 'zone'just dial the seven, ten or eleven digits as always. To dial to > the other zone, treat it technically like an 'international call' and > dial 011 plus 11 or 011 plus 12 and the ten digit number. Of course, you have to deal with the problem of dialing an operator- assisted call to another "USA country code": 01 + CC + number conflicts with your 011 + 1x + number scheme. 010 + 1x + number could be used, but CC=0xx may be assigned in the future. Or you could have 11=east USA and 12=east USA w/ operator, etc. Also, a dividing line by area code/state would likely cause some LATAs to be in multiple "countries", since many LATAs cross state lines. Al Varney ------------------------------ From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: jwineburgh@chubb.com Subject: Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:32:18 -0400 Interesting thought about the phones being IP nodes! Cisco has the beginnings of this in place with their acquisition of Selsius systems. We were just at a demo in their Edison lab and had actual conversation over both Ethernet and Frame relay networks. Of course, you will need their Ethernet switch (and NT controller box) to accomplish this. hehehe ... Oh, and the big boys (Lucent, Nortel, Siemens) don't think it will fly, either ... #JOE ------------------------------ From: jt5555@epix.net (Julian Thomas) Subject: Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:31:40 GMT In , on 07/27/99 at 10:22 PM, Fred Goldstein said: > You have to distinguish between three things: > NAME - how somebody is referenced by humans > ADDRESS - how something is referenced by machine > ROUTE - a path to get there > A phone number was originally all three. The NPA or NXX was indexed into > a route table, and the last four digits were the Terminal Address at the > destination switch. No separate address. In the earliest days of automatic exchanges, the exchange digits (may have been 1,2, or 3 digits) literally drove the routing (stepper switches). Julian Thomas: jt 5555 at epix dot net http://home.epix.net/~jt remove numerics for email Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! -- -- Double your drive space! Delete Windows! ------------------------------ From: nospam@elmhurst.msg.net Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us Date: 28 Jul 1999 15:21:18 -0500 Organization: MSG.Net, Inc. There are many technical mechanisms by why 'deep linking' can be circumvented, (cookies, checking the 'referer' sent by the user's browser, Java, etc), if Universal had made it _technically_impossible_ for sites to link directly to their content, I doubt this would have made the news. But rather than implement a simple technical solution, Universal is attempting to make a legal case against the remote site providing the deep links -- this is at best silly, and at worst a threat that could severely damage the concept of hyperlinks and 'the web' as a public place. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So they openly admit the main problem >> seems to be if you go directly to their content, they are unable to >> bombard you with advertising messages on the way. Perhaps they are >> also unable to sneak that cookie at you as well. Ooooh, they have a >> real problem don't they! My heart bleeds for them. It would be an >> entirely different matter if a web site yanked the copyrighted >> content of some other site back to its own premises, deceptively >> claimed that it owned the content, etc, or if they put the content >> up from their own server along with their own advertising, etc. I have seen several cases where sites have 'inlined' graphics from sites hosted on my servers into their pages -- that is, rather than making their own local copies of graphics, and using their own bandwidth to serve them, when the user visits their page, the graphics are loaded from my page. But do I threaten to sue them? No ... Instead I use a simple Perl script to change all the references in my own pages to a new name, then replace the image they were linking to with something a little more 'interesting' :-) In a few cases the 'leech' doesn't take the hint, and changes all the references on _their_ page to point to the new name on my server. In that case I have to be a bit more tricky, and start checking HTTP_REFERRER. >> But if you put it on a web server then it is **public** and open for >> review by anyone who wishes to read it. Universal and a few other >> major corporations I could name had better come to grips with the >> way things work on the net. If they do not like it, they are free >> to shut down their web sites and vanish. Or to implement technical solutions, and we can then tolerate the inconvenience, work around their fix, or just ignore their site. This is how the Net should work -- but big business doesn't like our model, and seeks to change it to fit their own ends. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, thank you for waking up and smelling the coffee brewing. What have I been saying here for how ever long now? Please read this carefully again: *in the next two or three years -- do not hold me to a specific date or method of transition -- there will not be room on the net for you and your kind. Nor me and my kind for that matter either.* Big business is not going to allow us to continue actively on the net in the way we have traditionally used the net in general, and the web in particular. There is no room for it and you are getting in their way. The web has empowered each individual person in ways never before dreamed possible. There are many large corporations and special interests who do not like that at all. For more reading on this, please see http://telecom-digest.org/news and check this week's edition of {Atlantic Unbound}, which is the online edition -- with articles exclusive to the net not appearing in its print edition -- of {Atlantic Monthly} magazine. Read the article on what the net is doing to empower individuals. I will discuss the latest additions to http://telecom-digest.org/news in another message. Needless to say, I am quite pleased to have {Atlantic Unbound}, {BBC World News Online}, {The Christian Science Monitor Online Edition} and the same CS Monitor's Internet Audio News as just a few of the components in /news for you each day. PAT] ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:14:21 -0400 > Some major Web-site owners contend that because they have a lot > invested in their pages they should dictate who can and who can't link > into their site. Bullshit. (sorry for the language). They have no control over web crawlers and search engines. Besides, I fail to see why they would shun additional visitors to their site. Most companies strive to attract as many linkers as possible to increase visits/eyeballs. > Ticketmaster's main complaint was that users hyperlinking deep into > its site were missing several banner ads they would have seen if they > had entered through the frontdoor, Hayes said. For as much as I dislike banner ads, I think that this is a valid point. But from there to saying it is illegal to link to inside a web site, well, it is a long stretch. However, webmasters with a history of others deep linking into their site should get the message that users dislike their site and want to jump over the silly time wasting stuff usually found on home pages. Where I do see a problem is when documents are "stolen" from a site to appear as part of another site's page. For instance, if on my home page, I have a thumbnail for a movie trailer and when you click on it, the actual movie trailer appears on my home page but it sources directly from the studio's web site without any mention of where it comes from. For studios, it is pretty silly since they should encourage as many eyeballs as possible for their movies. But for other companies I can see why such "theft" of documents might be a problem. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In http://telecom-digest.org/news I use my own locally cached copy of the image from the supplier for users to click on. For the various audio feeds I offer, the user is able to identify each feed based on its hyperlink and choose the ones of interest. I now also offer a free download of an audio/video player for any users who do not already have one. Real.com, which is a very well-known and widely admired member of the net community encouraged me to make their free players available directly from this site, and to have their schedule of daily live netcasts available on line. While the various audio feeds I offer from suppliers of same such as BBC News, CS Monitor Radio, AP News, Vortex.com and CNN are fed through plugins of my own devising, the free player is made available for people who wish to download one as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:56:52 -0400 Don't forget that Universal was the first studio to sue to try to get off-air home video recording banned (Disney joined the lawsuit later). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:59:25 -0700 From: Cortland Richmond Organization: Alcatel Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us If one merely LISTS a URL without linking, the result is the same. Seems to me, the people who want to stop deep linking had best arrange that their material can only be accessed from the path they wish to preserve. Cortland [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are you trying to tell these big companies how they should be doing business? Just because they invaded the net, have caused bandwidth problems and congestion problems galore, and act like they own the place, does that give you any right to open your mouth and complain about it? LOL ... My recommendation: take the year or three remaining of relative freedom for amatuer computerists like yourself, me and others who still remain from the 'old days of the net' and be grateful for what we have left, before it vanishes also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com (Art Walker) Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us Date: 28 Jul 1999 18:39:37 GMT Organization: Recovering Nebraskans Clinic - Denver, CO Reply-To: Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:36:32 PDT, TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > But if you put it on a web server then it is **public** and open for > review by anyone who wishes to read it. Universal and a few other > major corporations I could name had better come to grips with the > way things work on the net. If they do not like it, they are free > to shut down their web sites and vanish. One thing I hope netizens > will not allow to happen is for Big Business to decide they are going > to start setting the rules around here. We are seeing a lot of this > already. It sounds like the real problem is that Universal needs to configure their web server to check HTTP_REFERER values and redirect "illegal" links back to their main page. Art [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or they could do like Ticketmaster and divert the user off to some snotty and rude 'response center' where they leave netizens feeling like two cents and as though they (the netizen) did something wrong. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:12:23 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us At 11:17 PM 7/27/99 -0400, Pat wrote in V19 # 256: [from a WIRED NEWS Article by Oscar S. Cisneros] > Movie-List's legal scuffling with Universal began almost six months > ago when a Universal representative contacted Bazinet and asked him to > quit using the movie studio's digitized movie previews. Bazinet had no > objections and removed the trailers from his Web servers and CD-ROM > collections. Sounds like this particular site started out on the wrong foot. Collecting the clips for a personal use collection is one thing but putting them on CD-ROMs? They have attracted attention! > Legal experts did comment, however, saying the legal landscape > surrounding deep linking, or hyperlinking deep into another's Web > page, is fraught with unpaved ways. The next target: Search engines. The oldest 'deep linkers' around as they generally point to content pages within a site instead of home pages or section homes. > Some major Web-site owners contend that because they have a lot > invested in their pages they should dictate who can and who can't link > into their site. Others, however, contend that they have as much right > to direct users to a specific Web page as they do to point out a > billboard on the street. The problem with the deep link is it doesn't always point to the "billboard" but to the picture on the billboard. Instead of seeing the billboard for Universal's latest film, one sees just the clip. The visitor is not seeing the presentation as designed by the content provider. Some sites go out of their way to make deep links hard if not impossible. One must read the source and occasionally read javascript modules to figure out what the deep link address is. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > I feel strongly enough about this issue that I am going to begin a > new feature here as soon as I can called /freestuff ... With all the complaints about Third Voice alteration of sites this seems like another way to present content in an altered fashion. Those clips are presented as part of a larger presentation. While {Reader's Digest} works in this way, editing and sampling stories from other sources, they do it after seeking permission and cannot print in their compilation what they have not recieved permission to print. It is a sticky issue. Probably the best solution is for those who don't like deep links to use session links or referrer based links on their servers. It really messes up the cache and adds traffic to the net, but if people are unwilling to honor 'no deep link' requests then something must be done to protect their presentations. James Bellaire [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although I do not believe the net is the place to sell things on a commercial basis, if a site has something for sale and they request that you go through their front page with your credit card in order to get referred to their deep page where the download takes place, I think that should be honored. I am not interested in ripping off creative people who have made contribu- tions to the net, even though I do not believe in many cases they are correct in attempting to sell it. That even applies for porn sites. I guess you heard we have a 'few' of those on the net. The other day someone distributed a list of the various deep page URLs where one could go to circumvent the billing mechanism on the front pages. Direct your browser to those deep pages and sure enough, there is the 'secret web cam' or whatever with the 'nude teens' doing their thing. Now I happen to think that stuff is a gross abuse of the purpose of the net and the web; but they still have the right to do their thing for the world to see and pay for. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gary Pratt Subject: Re: eBay Tries to Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:08:36 -0400 > Under the terms of the eBay > service, if the low bid exceeds the seller's reserve then they are > obliged to complete the sale -- possibly receiving far less than the > fair market value they might otherwise have obtained. Whose fault is it that the reserve price was set too low? A reserve price represents the price that a person is willing to sell an item for. If the seller hasn't done their due diligence to determine the fair market value for their item, that's the seller's fault. The only reason I can think of for a seller to set a reserve price too low would be to avoid the added fee for a higher value reserve price. If that's the seller's reason, then you get what you pay for. I sell on eBay and have never had a problem with this. I've never had a bid retraction nor have I sold any item for less than the price I was willing to sell at. Based on the seller's feedback, I've sold many more items on eBay than he has. I'm not denying that there are problems with fraudulent bidders on eBay, but that doesn't absolve the seller of the responsibility to protect themselves by setting reasonable reserve prices. Gary E. Pratt Pratt Diversified Services ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:45:47 -0400 From: David Massey Subject: eBay Fraudulent Bidding Warning I received the following link from a member of the Antique Telephone Collectors Association club which I belong to. Some telephone collectors in our club have been ripped off on eBay due to this new scam going on on eBay and eBay has made no effort to fix the problem and in fact told the author of the link below not to spread the word because it will just cause more criminals to find out about the eBay loophole. Please read: http://mars.superlink.net/jason/ebay/ I'm always going to set a reserve price now that I read this! I have seen some people get scammed into selling very valuable things for a couple dollars because they did not set a reserve and they started the bid at a few bucks. The scam artist comes in with a hidden identity or a temporary email address and rips you off. When selling, I start my bid amount low but set a reserve amount so I'm protected somewhat from these types of frauds. Not setting a reserve is very dangerous and you are legally bound to sell your item to the highest bidder that has not retracted his/her bid. Anyway, I don't know how many of you use ebay for buying/selling but if this email keeps one of you from getting ripped off, it was worth it. David Massey ATCA Member #3525 Visit my web site "Tribute to the Telephone" at http://telecom-digest.org/tribute ------------------------------ From: kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) Date: 28 Jul 1999 17:53:02 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: eBay Tries to Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco An article written by Bruce Simpson notes: > eBay, although an Internet high-flyer and darling of the stock market > has had numerous problems during its brief lifetime -- facing numerous > hardware glitches and crashes as well as law suit for patent > infringement plus NYC and federal government investigations in > relation to potentially illegal transactions through its service. I've never liked eBay's setup. I was first exposed to online auctions through Onsale (http://www.onsale.com), and like both their interface and policies. Onsale's "Yankee" auctions have a "closing" date/time, but auctions will be extended by 10 minutes after the last bid. Which means an auction can go for a lot longer than the presumed closing time, if bids are active. Of course, I tend to use the auctions to buy stuff not sell stuff, so I can't say if Onsale's policies in regards to selling stuff are substantially similar to eBays. Kim Brennan (kim@aol.com) Duo 2300c, PB 2400, VW Fox Wagon GL, Corrado SLC, Vanagon GL Syncro http://members.aol.com/kim Duo Info Page: http://members.aol.com/kim/computer/duo ?'s should include "Duo" in subject, else they'll be deleted unread. ------------------------------ From: kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) Date: 28 Jul 1999 17:56:59 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Dead Cow DOA Steven W. Smith notes: > my imprecise recollection is that SMS costs about $900 > and uses 15MB or so of disk space. BO2K is free, under 1MB. Hmm, let me get this straight. Microsoft spent a lot of money developing a product (BO2K) and is giving it away for free. Gee, I wonder if once they have the market they won't charge for upgrades (that will somehow be incompatible with previous versions forcing others to upgrade.) We've never seen Microsoft do that before have we? Pardon my cynicism. Kim Brennan (kim@aol.com) Duo 2300c, PB 2400, VW Fox Wagon GL, Corrado SLC, Vanagon GL Syncro http://members.aol.com/kim Duo Info Page: http://members.aol.com/kim/computer/duo ?'s should include "Duo" in subject, else they'll be deleted unread. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you misunderstood. Dead Cow is giving its product away for free is the way I understood it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 1999 13:46:44 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Why can't the FCC mandate that 10 digit dialing ALWAYS works? Because it's ambiguous -- the switch can't tell 321-555-1234 from 321-5551. On the other hand, 1+10 is unambiguous and there's no reason it can't work everywhere. In many urban states including New York, New Jersey, and California, you can dial 1+10 for any call, and 7D for any call within your area code and it'll go through correctly, regardless of whether it's local, intra-LATA toll, or inter-LATA toll. I gather that benighted PUCs in Mass, Texas, and some other states have insisted that 1+10 not work on local calls, but I've never understood what the rationale is supposed to be. In many states 7D doesn't work for toll calls inside your area code, either, presumably to prevent people from being driven to bankruptcy by making a couple of unintended 12 cent toll calls. Phoo. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:54:37 -0400 Daniel Ganek (ganek@radionics.com) wrote: > Why can't the FCC mandate that 10 digit dialing ALWAYS works? Why *should* the FCC mandate that local calls (that do not cross a state line) must be dialable in a certain way? How does this have a real impact on interstate commerce -- and if it does not, what business does the Federal government have telling the states what to do in this regard? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #259 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 29 16:23:36 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA08953; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:23:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:23:36 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907292023.QAA08953@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #260 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Jul 99 16:23:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 260 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cable Internet Products Draw Ire of Consumer Groups (Monty Solomon) World's First "Real Time PC to Fax" From bcmfax.net (S. Kaushik) AT&T Bill Dispute Help (Drew C. Morone) Bell Canada and Stentor (J.F. Mezei) Re: "Bright Light" POP Spam Filtering: A Bad Idea (nospam@elmhurst.msg.net) Re: 56k and Portmaster 3 (Matthew Black) Re: 56k and Portmaster 3 (Steven J. Sobol) Seeking Reference to Touch Tones and Music (Jennifer Martino) ITT Wiring Diagram Needed (Keelan Lightfoot) Cordless Phones Interference Problem (Alter Kollel) Re: The Crisis at Pacifica Radio (Cortland Richmond) Re: USF and PICC Charges (Linc Madison) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cable Internet Products Draw Ire of Consumer Groups Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:27:30 -0400 By Aaron Pressman WASHINGTON, July 29 (Reuters) - A leading supplier of Internet gear for the cable industry is touting products to allow cable companies to block or restrict consumers from reaching any Web site they choose, drawing sharp criticism from public advocacy groups. The revelations comes at a critical juncture for the industry, which is spending billions of dollars to roll out high-speed Internet service over cable lines while fighting national and local efforts to regulate their fledgling new product. The industry has so far blunted the calls for regulation in all but two cities across the country, in part by committing to allow their customers to reach easily any Web site anywhere on the Internet, whether owned by a cable company or not. But according to marketing materials from Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO), the No. 1 maker of computer networking equipment, cable companies will be able to work behind the scenes with sophisticated software included in Cisco products to slow down and limit access to selected Web sites. Without fully cutting off access to unaffiliated sites, the technology allows a cable company to make such destinations appear much more slowly on customers' computers than preferred sites, Cisco claimed in brochures distributed at a recent cable convention in Chicago. "This is the owner's manual that they're providing to the cable industry to monopolize the Internet," said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Media Education. The non-profit Washington group, along with Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America and the Media Access Project, sent a letter Thursday to the Federal Communications Commission calling for regulation of cable Internet services. The FCC has so far decided to monitor closely the cable Internet market of less than one million subscribers, compared with almost 40 million going online over ordinary phone lines). The latest controversy appeared unlikely to change many minds at the agency. "We share the same goals as the consumer groups and we believe that there should be an open system as well," said Debra Lathen, head of the agency's cable bureau. "Where we diverge is how you get there. We believe the market is going to mandate -- to require -- an open system." "We will be very watchful; that is our obligation," Lathen added. AT&T Corp. (NYSE: T), whose ExciteAtHome Corp. (Nasdaq: ATHM) Internet provider has used some Cisco products, pledged not to use the features to discriminate against other Web sites. "We are not in the content-management business; we're in the network management business," said spokesman Mark Siegel. Asked if AT&T would utilize the Cisco products to limit access to any Web sites, Siegel replied: "No, we don't that." A Cisco spokesman said the same technology was made available to all players, including phone companies, satellite firms and major Internet service providers. "This is consistent with Cisco's open standards philosophy and commitment to competition in the marketplace," spokesman Tom Galvin said. "This technology was designed with customers in mind who clearly want tools to protect against offensive content such as hate or obscene material." Cisco's marketing materials cited clearly commercial uses of the software, giving as an example a "push" Web site, which automatically downloads fresh news or other information to a customer's computer at set intervals. "You could restrict the incoming push broadcasts as well as subscribers' outgoing access to the push information site to discourage its use," Cisco's brochure said. "At the same time, you could promote and offer your own partner's services with full-speed features to encourage adoption of your services while increasing network efficiency." ------------------------------ Subject: World's First "Real Time PC to Fax" From bcmfax.net From: S. Kaushik Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:35:08 +0430 Organization: Infozech "Real Time Fax technology over IP" is finally a reality! With "True Real Time" faxing users will be able to send and receive faxes in real time and will be able to monitor actual fax delivery page-by-page directly from their desktops and receive delivery notification in the same session ! With the advent of "Real Time Fax technology" over the public Internet, the user can expect reduced lead times approaching true real time in transmitting faxes over public Internet, immediate confirmation of delivery, no quality degradation and more reliability. All this adds up to more cost savings for the user, more transparency and messages can be sent from any fax machine or Windows application throughout the world. With Real Time Fax over IP the prospective user is guaranteed about prime service, very secure transmission with new methods of encryption and high transparency to user albeit at a high network cost (controlled bandwidth-nothing less than 64 kbps leased lines) and under controlled networks since Real Time Fax sessions can not tolerate delays beyond five seconds. The above mentioned 'constraints' of Real Time Fax technology (in spite of it's inherent advantages over the traditional store-and-forward approach) has been the primary reason that Real Time Faxing has remained confined to private, dedicated and controlled networks. Infact NCAS (North Carolina State Agency) has enhanced it's infrastructure to incorporate Real Time Fax technology to improve it's overall supply chain management. For more details visit http://www.osc.state.nc.us The current scenario, however, might change very fast with the announcement last week by CMR (a Tel Aviv based company specializing in developing and supporting Real Time fax over IP technology) and bcmfax.net (California based company which focuses on providing its customers worldwide Fax over IP services through it's 66 member node operators located across 43 countries) regarding the commercial availability of world's first Real Time Fax over IP technology . For more details regarding the availability of Real Time Fax technology and services, visit http://www.bcmfax.net . Kaushik kaushik@bcmfax.net Integrated Solutions for Internet Faxing http://www.bcmfax.net ------------------------------ From: Drew C. Morone Subject: AT&T Bill Dispute Help Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:12:24 GMT Hi there, We had a computer that would dial a local number to back up data files. The call was made to a different area code, but it was still local (NYC area). The computer was taken out of service at that location, and moved to another location which was out of state, but still only six miles away. The people at the new location plugged everything in, not realizing that the backup process was still attempting to connect to the same number, now long distance. The system would call day and night trying to establish a connection to continue the backup. It would fail, and try again. All without anyone realizing it, until the bill came. It was around $3000.00! AT&T is the long distance carrier. This was back in February. We contacted AT&T to see if we could explain the situation, and maybe get some sort of an adjustment. - First we were told to fax the info in a letter, and attach the bill. We did this, then heard nothing for three months. In the meantime, disconnection letters came from the local telco. - Next, I talked to a very helpful person, who assured me that the situation would be looked into. She put a stop on the disconnect notice from the local telco. All looked very promising. - Two months later the disconnect notices start coming in again. We call the local telco. They've had no contact since two month's previous. We call AT&T, and are told that since it's equipment failure, there will be no adjustment. Plain and simple. Too bad. I tried to get someone there to listen to the situation, but they weren't interested. Where do I go from here? The company can't pay the bill, and will probably go under if they have to pay such a large bill. If anyone has some advice, please e-mail me. Thanks, \@/ \@/ \@/ ||| `_ _' Drew Morone ||| drew@j51.com `_ _' ||| ||| - ||| - ||| ||| ` U ' ||| ` U ' ||| [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is really very sad. Since as you described it above, the problem was entirely of your own making, the carrier really isn't required to do a thing. I wish I had an answer but I do not. It does however highlight two (of the several) absolutely cardinal rules that must always be observed if you have a computer which places its own telephone calls: (1) Get your long distance bill separate from your local bill. Lose the one service for whatever reason without losing your local service as well. (2) Before the computer is ever allowed to connect to a phone line, check, double-check and triple- check the software code to insure calls are going as directed, where directed, and when directed. Make certain you know exactly what the phone company charge is for the call. For at least the first couple of connection sessions, audit or monitor the calls closely to be sure you, the telco, and the computer are all on the same wavelength. There have been publicized cases in the past where computers attached to phone lines have created hassles both for their owners as well as in some cases innocent bystanders. In Chicago in the middle 1980's a computer used for a Fido-style BBS put through dozens of calls nightly to the residence of an elderly lady at 3:00 AM who understandably was frightened and disturbed by it. Illinois Bell traced the calls back to the system admin and disconnected his service pending a review of the whole thing. He came extremely close to getting sued. Then there was the case of the First National Bank of Chicago and its errant fax machine which insisted on making an international call to a private residence in Germany during the middle of the night, German time. That took an investigation initiated by Bundepost and completed with the cooperation of AT&T and Illinois Bell to resolve. It was reported here in the Digest in detail as older readers will recall. Before you *ever* allow any device to make telephone calls on its own, you be absolutely certain of what's going on. Or if you prefer, do not bother checking it out and wait until you get disconnected for inability to pay the bill, and sued because your computer became a nuisance to others in the community with its overnight phone calls and high pitched squeals and alternating periods of silence while trying to get others of its own kind to answer it. I am really sorry Drew, you have been given an expensive lesson to learn. Good luck. PAT] ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Bell Canada and Stentor Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 23:50:40 -0400 (I was told this, not authoritatively confirmed though.) In September, Bell Canada, (which previously operated certain services such as Envoy 100 and Inet on behalf of Stentor members) will be service all customers of these services directly, bypassing the local telcos. New account numbers will be issued to customers using these services (5 digital I was told) now that Bell will have national coverage. BC customers will receive bills from Bell Canada. This change is fairly easy as it does not involve systems which are in a widespread use and involves a single system/service at the national level (as opposed to cellular which is a association of different operators in the "mobility" brand). However, I am surprised at the speed this is happening. I was told that Bell is putting in a new accounting/billing software package to handle national coverage and is in the process of training staff on that new system. I would suspect that Datapac will be next. For that, Bell will probably have to buy assets from the local telcos. These are "legacy" systems and local telcos probably don't mind getting rid of them. (Although Datapac does figure prominently in Canada's eftpos network). It will be interesting to see how things shape up for more moderns services such as Mobility (mobile phones) and Sympatico (internet access). ------------------------------ From: nospam@elmhurst.msg.net Subject: Re: "Bright Light" POP Spam Filtering: A Bad Idea Date: 28 Jul 1999 14:45:55 -0500 Organization: MSG.Net, Inc. In article , Adam Frix wrote: > In article , nospam@elmhurst.msg.net > (nospam) wrote: >> I have a problem with how they do things, as a system administrator I >> block Bright Light and all similar services from any POP server under >> my control. Any user who gives out their password to ANY 'untrusted >> third party' has to call to find out what their password has been >> changed to, or in a corp environment, has an interesting conversation >> with their supervisor. > You're worried about the user's password being used by unauthorized users > to gain access to your network? > Is that the *only* security mechanism you have for dialup? User name and > password?????? Where did I say 'only' or 'for dialup' or 'my network'? There are many ISPs (most?) where the username and password for dialup is the same as for POP, FTP, etc. I wouldn't recommend it for a corporate RAS solution. But that doesn't change my stance on divulging passwords. > Sounds lame to me. VERY lame. If security is an issue, passwords by > themselves suck. Get SecurID. Yes, in a corporate environment a Challenge-Response (not SecurID, it has problems) mechanism is an important component of security. But for an ISP offering $20/month accounts to the average user, token access isn't going to fly. At an ISP I'm less worried about a compromised password being used to gain access (anybody with a credit card can get access) than I am worried about the account being taken over for a warez site, spamming, etc. > I can give out my network password all day long. And nobody can dial up > and become me to get onto our network. So I wear a nice suit and walk into your office while you are at lunch, or bribe somebody on the cleaning crew to plug in a Wavelan under your desk :-) Reusable passwords are never a good idea. But they are often unavoidable. ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: 56k and Portmaster 3 Date: 29 Jul 1999 14:43:35 GMT Organization: Your Organization In article , jeff@paradyne.com says: > I was wondering if there is a particular dial-up string that needs to > be configured in Windows dial-up networking that will allow USR (or > other) modems to connect with our Portmaster 3 at 56K. All of the > ports on the PM3 are set to the max speed (64k), but the max speed > users are able to connect at is 28.8. The same user can connect to our > corp. IBM isp account at least 44k. I have run into this in the past > with other dial-in servers and it was a dial-up string that fixed the > problem. It sounds like your Livingston (Lucent) PM3 is NOT connected to a "digital" T1. V.90 requires that the server side (PM3) be connected directly to the C/O switch without going through a channel bank or any other analog to digital (A/D) conversions. A modem init string will not solve this problem. Several other possible causes include, but not necessarily limited to: 1. An older version of ComOS. The latest version is 3.8. 2. Older PM3's with 1st version digital modem cards...Livingston provided free swaps. This typically applies to PM3's that are two to three years old. 3. The PM3 supports V.90 and K56flex. It does not support the U.S. Robotics "x2" technology...make sure the modem tries connecting with V.90. If your PM3 is less than one year old or you have a support agreement, call Livingston at 800-458-9966. -----------------------------(c) 1999 Matthew Black, all rights reserved-- matthew black | Opinions expressed herein belong to me and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer california state university | network services SSA-180E | e-mail: black at csulb dot edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 6D 14 36 ED 5F 34 C4 B3 long beach, ca 90840 | E9 1E F3 CB E7 65 EE BC ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: 56k and Portmaster 3 Date: 29 Jul 1999 03:25:03 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:38:59 -0400, jeff@paradyne.com allegedly said: > I was wondering if there is a particular dial-up string that needs to > be configured in Windows dial-up networking that will allow USR (or > other) modems to connect with our Portmaster 3 at 56K. All of the > ports on the PM3 are set to the max speed (64k), but the max speed > users are able to connect at is 28.8. The same user can connect to our > corp. IBM isp account at least 44k. I have run into this in the past > with other dial-in servers and it was a dial-up string that fixed the > problem. I see this with some USR's and the Portmasters my customers dial into, but not all. The first thing you may want to do is make sure that x2 negotiation is turned off. If the USR modem is trying to negotiate a 56K connection, it will get nowhere trying x2. The second thing you may want to do is check http://www.56k.com. In particular, check the troubleshooting link. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ From: Jennifer Martino Subject: Seeking References to Touch Tones and Music Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:02:35 -0500 I would like to know if anyone could post or know where I could find musical note equivelent translations to the touch tones. Thanks, jennifer martino the web page you have reached http://www.cotse.com/twpyhr/ over 200 unique telephone sounds recordings hosted by.. http://www.cotse.com ph33r the swimming elephant ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:38:41 -0700 Subject: ITT Wiring diagram From: Keelan Lightfoot I am looking for the wiring diagram of an ITT phone with what I think is a line switch on it. The switch is a transparent plastic knob in the lower left hand corner of the front of the phone. The phone looks like a WE Model 500 clone. Do you have anything in a maintenance manual that looks something like this? Thanks in advance! - Keelan Lightfoot ------------------------------ From: Alter Kollel Subject: Cordless Phones Interference Problem Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:54:54 -0400 Speaking of 900Mhz cordless phones, we had been using a pretty old (not 900Mhz) phone in our new apartment, and kept getting awful interference - both "Martian" noises and intersected phone call on our neighbors' lines! So we've been shopping for a 900Mhz phone. Well, the BellSouth model (a cheap one) had bad clipping. And the GE model has muffled (although consistent) sound. What is wrong? What should we do? Alter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:57:09 -0700 From: Cortland Richmond Organization: Alcatel Subject: Re: The Crisis at Pacifica Radio I live and work in KPFA's coverage area, and while I don't share their politics, I have not been unsympaothetic to the employees in this case. However, it may be that the station cannot generate enough contributions to keep itself afloat if it caters to radical politics to the exclusion of more centrist views. If this is so, then even if -- especially if -- the employees should "win" this battle, they will have lost the war, when the station closes due to insolvency. Even a non-profit must take in enough money to pay its bills, and its management has a duty to see it can. Dying gloriously for the cause is not a viable option for a radio station. Cortland ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:11:17 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: USF and PICC Charges In article , Eli Mantel wrote: > Linc Madison wrote: >> ... Telco ... charges a minimum of 63 cents/month/line for USF on >> *DIALAROUND* access! I made a whopping total of TWO calls, for a total >> of 22 cents, and was charged 63 cents in USF charge. ... Not only >> that, but they ... overbilled the federal tax (4 cents tax on 22 >> cents billing? Wrong!). > But the PICC and USF fees are obligations of the long distance > carrier, not the customer. No. The PICC and USF fees are ultimately obligations of the CUSTOMER, *NOT* the IXC. There is no reason to charge these fees to the IXC, other than as a collection agent in the same respect that they collect the various taxes (excise tax, utility tax, etc.). They should only be charged in a manner where it is very clear that $X was charged to IXC Y for customer Z, and therefore Y gets to charge Z $X -- not $X + fudge factor, not average value of $X over some range of customers, not some arbitrary minimum. > The carrier doesn't have to pass these charges along to you in this > manner, but you have to pay tax on whatever portion they do. The IXC shouldn't be paying the PICC, and I shouldn't be paying the PICC through the IXC. *ANY* and *ALL* flat monthly fees for telephone service should *ONLY* be collected directly through the LEC. No exceptions, period. The only charges/fees/taxes that should be permitted to be charged through the IXC should be strictly on a percentage basis. The idea is supposedly to bring the price of local service more in line with the cost of providing it, but the FCC implementation of the idea is bizarre and unacceptable. >> There is an FCC docket open for comments on this subject. >> I encourage everyone to look at "FCC Opens Inquiry into >> Flat-Rated L.D. Fees"... > IMO, the FCC is a "partner in crime" with the long distance carriers. Except that in this case it is also a "partner in crime" with the local exchange carriers. The whole reason that the PICC exists is that the LECs didn't want it to look like their prices were increasing. > The precedent having been set that such government-mandated charges > could be passed on to the customers as a separate line item, the > carriers began playing this game of lying about the rates, treating > these add-ons as if they were taxes (and I realize that the USF charge > is really a tax, but that's a rant for another time) and thus not > including them in their advertised rates. This is a disturbing trend in other arenas as well. For example, when I rent a car now, in addition to the advertised rate and applicable taxes, I pay an additional, separately itemized fee for the license plate on the car. Literally. I'd like to see Avis or Hertz or any of the others rent me a car without the optional license and registration. Worse yet, they now charge me separately for something that amounts to the depreciation of the vehicle I'm renting. Excuse me, but what exactly is the rental rate for, anyway? > As for charging fixed amounts for the USF, it may just be that the > marketing folks decided that too many people didn't understand this > percentage add-on, especially when they already had to deal with the > fixed PICC charge, so that some carriers like Telco and AT&T decided > to impose it as a flat charge. But that's ridiculous, especially in the case of dialaround access. You just put the USF up in the "tax" section with the other taxes. The more money you spend, the more USF charge you pay. Simple. > Had the FCC never allowed such charges to be separately itemized, the > carriers would just have buried it all in their rates along with the > other costs of doing business, and we wouldn't have a situation where > you can't really find out what the rates are without asking the > Customer Service Reps twenty questions and probably getting the wrong > answers anyway. Agreed. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #260 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 29 19:16:15 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA16641; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:16:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:16:15 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907292316.TAA16641@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #261 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Jul 99 19:16:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 261 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Contents of Daily E-News (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Interface Standard Set(s) to Wireless Telephone (Marcus AAkesson) Re: Recording ADPCM Files (Kevin Smeal) Unmasking Anonymous Posters (Monty Solomon) A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered (Monty Solomon) Re: VISA Authorizations (Graeme Thomas) Re: VISA Authorizations (Scott Robert Dawson) Re: VISA Authorizations (Steven J. Sobol) The ATM Debit Card Switcheroo (Lauren Weinstein) Re: LD Tel Company ACT (Aaron Woolfson) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Daniel Ganek) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (Adam Frix) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (Matthew Black) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:05:23 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: The Contents of Daily E-News For those of you who have expressed some confusion about the way that http://telecom-digest/news is organized -- admittedly there are a lot of resources available there -- this message may help you organize your use of the service more effeciently. No one really goes through it all every day. There simply is too much there. The intent was to make a variety of resources available so that users could pick and choose what they want to see on a regular basis with an easy interface. It is my subjective version of 'the best of the net', and granted, some people may have different opinions on what should be included. Here is how it is presently organized: On calling the page http://telecom-digest.org/news the 'default' audio presentation is BBC World News Online. Users have a choice of accepting this or changing to some other audio feed, or turning off the audio feed entirely, using the player controls I have embedded on the page at the top. Instead of BBC Online , i.e. /index.html users can go direct to a different audio feed as follows: http://telecom-digest.org/news BBC World News Online (or add /index.html at the end if desired, not necessary) Five minute news report prepared for Internet use. Updated hourly around the clock, seven days per week. http://telecom-digest.org/news/ap.html Associated Press Online Their audio feed to the Internet, five minutes in length, updated every few minutes. http://telecom-digest.org/news/reality.html Lauren Weinstein's comments each day known as 'Vortex Daily Reality Report and Unreality Trivia Quiz' - usually two minutes in length, updated five times weekly, originating from his home site, vortex.com http://telecom-digest.org/news/monitor.html Christian Science Monitor Online audio news feed. The Monitor has long had a well-respected, high-calibre international shortwave radio service; now they have recently begun an Internet-only audio news feed. About three minutes in length, updated daily with a 'weekend edition' as well. http://telecom-digest.org/news/CNNhead.html CNN Headline News for the Internet. This is a continuous live audio feed they make avail- able to netizens based on their cable service. ---- no matter which of the above you choose to use as the starting point, or if you just use the default which will get you BBC, the page is identical otherwise. Any of the above audio feeds has a link available to all the other audio feeds. ---- Other features available at http://telecom-digest.org/news include: 1. This Day in History, Daily Quote, Daily Comic Cartoon, Daily Astronomy Picture, Earth Alert, and other short features. Click on the links. 2. Links to the two major stories of the day presented by CNet. Click on the pictures to go to the stories. 3. The daily edition of {Christian Science Monitor Online}, the weekly edition of {Atlantic Unbound}, and the current issue of {CNet Shopper}. Click on any of the images shown to get the full issue. News about Mother Nature and earth science things is available by clicking on the little spinning globe. 4. Clicking on the 'TELECOM Digest' logo midway down the page in the center of the screen will give you about a hundred headline links from several other online publications, as well as pictures of the news. Click on any subsequent picture or headline to read the full report, and follow the link at the top of the page to get back to the main page of the /news section. 5. Local weather is available by entering your zip code, post code or city code for anywhere, from Weather Underground, in presentations especially designed for use by netizens. 6. Clicking on the real.com logo brings up the daily schedule of netcasts available, and links to 1700 audio/video feeds for use, many of which are exclusive to the Internet. Next to it is a place to click if you wish to obtain a *free* multimedia player, or want to upgrade the one you presently are using. I understand some of you cannot fritter away your day at one site going through all the feature stories and news and audio-visual presentations I have available. Therefore, you will also find a link entitled 'quick news' (I think that is what I called it) which will give you a very quick (five or ten minutes total) cluster of news stories you can read in less than a minute each. I call this the 'Daily E-News'. By the way, updates are very fast in arriving. Within about an hour on Thursday of the gunman in Atlanta who went around the brokerage office shooting everyone dead after he lost all his money, it was online here. It is all totally automated; as soon as one of my sources puts a new item online, it immediatly becomes linked for you to see/hear/read. I hope you find this free service useful, and that you will help it to remain free. Some of the content suppliers choose to include advertising on their own links which is beyond my control, as is anything you may read on their links. Overall, I think it benefits this site a lot. I hope also I made the right choices in my decisions regarding 'best of the net'. I realize that is a very subjective thing; not all will agree with my choices. I chose to only include *electronic* media. I am not including the traditional print media except when they have a distinct service for the Internet which differs substantially from any printed service they may also operate. I was not interested in those places which stuff advertising down your throat in order to get their content nor those sites like {New York Times} which insist on making netizens register or identify themselves (cookies or otherwise) and are sometimes not very truthful in what they present. Have you ever wondered what NYT does with all that registration data they collect from netizens? So have I. Enjoy http://telecom-digest.org/news and give me feedback about any problems with links, etc. PAT ------------------------------ From: marcus.akesson@no_spam_please.home.se (Marcus AAkesson) Subject: Re: Interface Standard Set(s) to Wireless Telephone Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:12:34 GMT Organization: Chalmers University of Technology On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 17:11:36 -0600, D. Snow wrote: > Does anyone make an interface which will integrate a wireless > telephone with one or more standard telephone sets? Yes, Nokia, among others. > The unit would need to provide current, dialtone and ring to the sets > and control the wireless phone for number entry, send and end > functions. PremiCell from Nokia is made for the sole prpose of patching ordinary phones to the cellular network. I See the PremiCell at: http://www.nokia.com/phones/premicell/index.html This is only for GSM900/1800. Marcus ------------------------------ From: kevinsmeal@my-deja.com (Kevin Smeal) Subject: Re: Recording ADPCM Files Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 03:18:18 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa. net wrote: > ctiguy@my-deja.com wrote: >> So the question finally is ... does anyone know of a way to create >> ADPCM sound files that sound good when played back over phone >> equipment. I expect a hardware card would be the way to go, something >> that can accept line-in input although if someone know of a software >> package that can convert from WAV to ADPCM and take into account the >> phone limitation thats playing the sounds ... that would be good too. > Is it the Dialogic cards that require ADPCM or are you running > "wrap-around" software that needs this format? I ran into this > problem several years ago using Natural Micro Systems cards while > building an IVR. We went through the trouble of hiring a voice, > paying for studio grade recordings on a cassette and then discovering > that the Edify software we used to create the IVR application was > incapable of accepting any format voice (wav or otherwise) because all > voice messages needed to be input through a phone connected to the NMS > cards. > The result -- we had to play our high quality voice back on a cheap > tape player and record through the mic on the phone. Since our IVR > was located in a noisy server room (AC, UPS, etc.) one person had to > stand outside the door, dial into the IVR while the other started and > stopped the recording procedure on the server. What a mess. However, > I do think Edify addressed this issue in later releases so that one > could simply input a wav file. Might want to check with your software > vendor, or look at some of the low cost IVR development alternatives > that work with Dialogic for this capability. Sorry I couldn't be of > more help but I know your frustration. ctiguy and John - There are a couple options you can try, based on your budget, your time, and what you're trying to do: First, are you restricted to the 6k sampling rate? I know that some Dialogic cards can handle 8K ADPCM, and you might get a slightly better recording using it. The higher the sampling, the better the quality. Of course, there might be some limitations on the IVR software. Second, try a program called CoolEdit96. It's available as shareware from www.syntrillium.com, and runs about $40. It's a very handy editor that permits you record, edit, translate, convert, and customize WAV files (along with a lot of other things), including saving/converting to various ADPCM formats. It's been well worth the $40 spent. Third, try a program called VoxStudio. It's a little more expensive (about $500) and available from Parity Software (www.paritysoftware.com). VoxStudio permits you to convert from/to many telephony formats to other telephony formats, including doing batch conversions (of up to 1024 segments per batch). Finally, give Dynametrics in California a call (I believe it's www.dynametrics.com). Dynametrics sells a number of devices that will let you play and record to/from many other devices. For example, one device fits between your handset and telephone and plugs into your sound card (either play or play/record) and lets you "inject" (play ) sound files into the phone without having to go the cassette recorder route. The one thing to remember is that the device will pick up all sounds, so you will need to have some form of mute switch on the handset (or you can disconnect the handset) or use a headset like Customer Service Reps use (with a mute switch) so that the background noise is not picked up. I have been programming for 5 years and over the past two years have converted a system with about 5000 prompts to another system with a different audio file format - and these tools were invaluable in saving time. Hopefully this information will be helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to e-mail me. Kevin Smeal Team Leader, IVR Development ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:35:48 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Unmasking Anonymous Posters Oscar S. Cisneros 3:00 a.m. 29.Jul.99.PDT A new legal trend has privacy advocates up in arms: Attorneys are using subpoenas to unmask the identities of anonymous posters to online discussion forums. And the people whose identities are at stake rarely have the chance to fight back. http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/20983.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:41:20 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered July 28, 1999 By PAMELA MENDELS A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered A new breed of Internet service provider is emerging to serve the needs of parents and others who want access to an Internet free of pornography, bomb-making information, hate advocacy and other perceived ills. They are called "filtered ISPs," and they exist to make it easy for families and others to keep arguably objectionable material off their computer screens. http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/07/cyber/education/28education.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 22:35:00 +0100 From: Graeme Thomas Subject: Re: VISA Authorizations In article , Joey Lindstrom writes: [ Sad story snipped ] > The guy at Esso was very sorry, but said that's just how the banks work > things and there was nothing he could do about it - indeed, I was far > from the first person to phone and complain about this, but the banks > pretty much had guns pointed at their heads telling 'em "this is how > we'll do things". There are variants about, but what typically happens is this: The authorizations happen online, at the time of purchase. The auth amount is blocked on the account. If nothing further happens, then the authorization will eventually expire, and the amount will be released. As another poster commented, the delay depends on the card and the processor, but it can be (and often is) up to 45 days. At the "end of day", the terminal uploads all its transactions to the network. That's when real money gets transferred. The merchant does not get his money until that upload happens, and your account won't get debited, either. That "end of day" processing happens whenever the merchant feels like it, although there is often something in the contract between the merchant and the acquirer to prevent the merchant from doing it too often. It sounds, from the story, as though the manager of the gas station did not do those uploads at the weekend, but waited until Monday night. It's not particularly friendsly of him, but he's within his rights. Of course, not all banks do their job properly. I know of at least one that got it wrong up till last week, because that's when I fixed their code. Graeme Thomas ------------------------------ From: sunspace@interlog.com.placeholder (Scott Robert Dawson) Subject: Re: VISA Authorizations Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:46:24 GMT Organization: Interlog Internet Services On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:54:20 -0600, Joey Lindstrom wrote: > Here's the problem: when their system preauthorizes your card, they do > so in the amount of $75. However, unlike the situation you describe, > it takes three BUSINESS DAYS (remember, this was a weekend) for these > authorizations to "expire" This whole issue of credit holds is a little devious. It'd be interesting to find out how long Rogers Video's CC authorization would take to expire, if I ever get around to renting a DVD player from them some night. This is the kind of thing the federal and provincial governments should hold up to the light, when the banks request permission to merge, or an inquiry is conducted into gas-price collusion. Scott Robert Dawson, Toronto Parolu esperante! ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: VISA Authorizations Date: 29 Jul 1999 03:28:49 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:54:20 -0600, Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU allegedly said: > Here's the problem: when their system preauthorizes your card, they do > so in the amount of $75. However, unlike the situation you describe, I used to work at a BP station here in Ohio. BP preauthorizes for $35. That seems a much more manageable amount than $75 (even though, yes, I understand it's $75 *Canadian* dollars). Is Canadian gas that much more expensive? Gas here is about 33 cents per liter (that's figuring a local average of US$1.25 a gallon, and there are 3.785 liters in a gallon). North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 99 20:56 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: The ATM Debit Card Switcheroo Greetings. Readers interested in additional background on the topic of VISA/MC, etc. debit/check cards and the issues involving them, may wish to click over to: http://www.vortex.com/privacy/priv.06.16 That issue (20 Nov 97) of the PRIVACY Forum Digest contained my article "The ATM Debit Card Switcheroo," which described events surrounding Wells Fargo's mass replacement of conventional ATM cards with debit (check) cards. This topic has continued to resurface in the PRIVACY Forum from time to time, of course. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein Moderator, PRIVACY Forum --- http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Host, "Vortex Daily Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz" --- http://www.vortex.com/reality ------------------------------ From: telone@shout.net (Aaron Woolfson) Subject: Re: LD Tel Company ACT Date: 29 Jul 1999 19:57:59 GMT Organization: Shouting Ground Technologies, Inc. They have great customer service, always answer with a real person (no voice mail routing), have good rates, clear and understandable bills, ... seems good enough to me. Aaron Stan U. (stanri@yahooREMOVETHISPART.com) wrote: > Has anyone had any experience with this long distant company, > (Advanced Communications Techniques, Inc) either good or bad. > http://advanced-communication.com/ ------------------------------ From: Daniel Ganek Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:33:08 -0400 Organization: Radionics, Inc. Ed Ellers wrote: > Daniel Ganek (ganek@radionics.com) wrote: >> Why can't the FCC mandate that 10 digit dialing ALWAYS works? > Why *should* the FCC mandate that local calls (that do not cross a > state line) must be dialable in a certain way? How does this have a > real impact on interstate commerce -- and if it does not, what > business does the Federal government have telling the states what to > do in this regard? A number of people misinterpreted my question. First, I meant 1+10 digit dialing. Second, I didn't mean that seven digit local dialing be abolished just that 1+10 digit dialing be an option even for a local call. It was just a couple of years ago when we had four and five digit dialing and we could still dial the whole seven digits. I don't make a lot of local calls and it drives me crazy trying to figure out whether a town is local or not. BA recorded messages are useless as I said. /dan ------------------------------ From: adamf@columbus.rr.com (Adam Frix) Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 17:17:10 -0400 Organization: Road Runner Columbus In article , nospam@elmhurst. msg.net wrote: > There are many technical mechanisms by why 'deep linking' can be > circumvented, (cookies, checking the 'referer' sent by the user's > browser, Java, etc), if Universal had made it _technically_impossible_ > for sites to link directly to their content, I doubt this would have > made the news. > But rather than implement a simple technical solution, Universal is > attempting to make a legal case against the remote site providing the > deep links -- this is at best silly, and at worst a threat that could > severely damage the concept of hyperlinks and 'the web' as a public > place. Sounds a lot like the satellite TV broadcasters, huh. And the cell phone companies. Remember? "We CHOOSE NOT TO make it technically impossible to intercept our signal, because it's cheaper to pay the lawyers and lobbyists to make it 'illegal' than to pay to develop and implement the appropriate technology." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, well I hope netizens will NOT allow the above to become commonplace on the net. We were around here doing things our way long before any of them showed up. The newcomers and their lawyers are free to play by the rules we already have here or they can go elsewhere. PAT] ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us Date: 29 Jul 1999 22:04:33 GMT In article , Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com says: > It sounds like the real problem is that Universal needs to configure > their web server to check HTTP_REFERER values and redirect "illegal" > links back to their main page. That would stop linking. However, it would not stop people from retyping the link on their browser URL field. -----------------------------(c) 1999 Matthew Black, all rights reserved-- matthew black | Opinions expressed herein belong to me and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer california state university | network services SSA-180E | e-mail: black at csulb dot edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 6D 14 36 ED 5F 34 C4 B3 long beach, ca 90840 | E9 1E F3 CB E7 65 EE BC ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #261 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jul 29 20:27:25 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id UAA19780; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 20:27:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 20:27:25 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907300027.UAA19780@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #262 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Jul 99 20:27:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 262 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson PacBell PCS and IXO/TAP Protocol (Derek J. Balling) Re: A Week We Won't Forget - To the Moon (Bill Blum) Re: Cable Internet Products Draw Ire of Consumer Groups (J.F. Mezei) Re: eBay Fraudulant Bidding Warning (James Gifford) Re: eBay Fraudulant Bidding Warning (Linc Madison) Re: eBay Fraudulant Bidding Warning (Terry Kennedy) Phone Database (Dave Kitabjian) Re: Visa Check Cards (Derek J. Balling) Re: VISA Cheque Cards (Does Ralph Nader Have a Credit Card) (M. Klassen) Re: VISA Authorizations (Steven Lichter) Would Uncle Sam Like to Spy on You? (TELECOM Digest Editor) Last Laugh! More 1999 Darwin Awards (David Massey) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 17:06:21 -0700 From: Derek J. Balling Subject: PacBell PCS and IXO/TAP Protocol OK, I've got a fairly straightforward question. I'm trying to set up a page-server internally that will dial to our engineers (who all have different cell/PCS/pager providers, depending on the coverage patterns for wherever they live in the Bay Area). I've been using qpage (a GREAT little free TAP/IXO paging utility for UNIX) with much success for most of our people. I keep running into problems, however, with PacBell PCS customers. I can send pages to our CellOnePCS customers just fine, but when I try to deliver a page to PacBell PCS's modem ports, I consistently get: message rejected page failed, id=GcXy0000, from=dballing, to=testuser, parts=1 : Not accepted - MSGTRN contents format incorrect (0x00004) Since this is working for everyone else, I can only assume that I'm either (a) dialing into a port that LOOKS like a TAP/IXO port but really isn't and that I need a new number, or (b) I need to somehow "alter" the pin number or whatever is being sent in some manner that PacBell will like. I've been dialing into 1-888-600-7267, which according to www.qpage.org is the PacBell PCS port. I haven't gotten any reply from qpage's author indicating the source of this info (so I could try and track it down that way) Of course, as is usually the case with things like this, the first few front lines of PacBell customer support were just this side of useless (one of them going so far as to say no such port exists at all). :) Has anyone been able to deliver pages, via modem, to their PacBell PCS phones? (Yes, I'm aware of their e-mail gateway, that's not an option for many many reasons, not the least of which is horrible delays that seem to ensue from using it). Any assistance would be GREATLY appreciatead. D ------------------------------ From: Bill Blum Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:59:39 -0400 Subject: Re: A Week We Won't Forget - To the Moon Pat, just a note to say I thoroughly enjoyed this thread. Perhaps readers would like a pointer to the PBS site that has some "excellent" QuickTime VR MOVies of all six moon missions (small files, largest is 400K). Check out: To the Moon - NOVA takes you there, with 360-degree panoramas from the Apollo landings. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/ or to the following site to get directly to the QTVR movies http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/explore.html Bill Blum Computer Services Sr Systems Specialist CAES Griffin Campus, Ga Exp Stn (770)228-7270 fax 1109 Experiment Street Griffin, GA 30223-1797 bastille@gaes.griffin.peachnet.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks very much. I am happy to pass those along to readers. If I do any more editing to our own presen- tation here, http://telecom-digest.org/camelot-on-the-moon.html I may include on the page the links you suggest above. PAT] ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Cable Internet Products Draw Ire of Consumer Groups Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:56:04 -0400 This, and that Universal issue point to me one big thing: A lot of companies jumped onto the internet bandwagon because they were just following the other sheep that were jumping off the bridge. So now, they all are so proud to announce that they are an "e-business" and so far, Wall Street has applauded all companies (except Starbucks) who went "e-business" even if it means that it won't make a profit. But my guess is that there is a growing pressure now to make these ventures profitable. And companies which are clueless on the cultural nature of the Internet are coming up with attempts to make money (or reduce losses) which go against what users want. My hope is that any such attempt will severely backfire against the company and get a huge slap from Wall Street. Once this happens once, all the other sheep will learn to behave on the net. Heard a good question the other day: Why is Amazon.COM more succesfull than Barnes&Noble.com ? My impression is that Wall Street is driving a headless run towards the internet with absolutely no clue on where it will go. It is NOT business as usual and many don't quite get it yet and try to implement business-as-usual solutions to it. My impression is that most of these new IPOs are truly virtual companies. There is such a frenzy that I should just start JF.COM and go public, put up a couple of web pages and once I get the few hundred million dollars from the IPO, I skip town leave the server running (stale content) and enjoy the money on a remote island in the South Pacific. DRKOOP.COM ? Me thinks there will be a HUGE and very hard rude awakening on Wall Street. ------------------------------ From: James Gifford Reply-To: gifford@nitrosyncretic.com Organization: Nitrosyncretic Press Subject: Re: eBay Fraudulant Bidding Warning Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:52:32 -0700 David Massey wrote: > I'm always going to set a reserve price now that I read this! I have > seen some people get scammed into selling very valuable things for a > couple dollars because they did not set a reserve and they started the > bid at a few bucks. The scam artist comes in with a hidden identity > or a temporary email address and rips you off. Uh ... exactly how does a seller get "scammed" into selling things too cheaply? If anyone is jumping in with both feet, placing costly items for auction without setting a reserve and obviously hasn't read the pages and pages of tips and suggestions for sellers, then I have no tears to shed for them. That there are people out there watching like a hawk for such naivete and jumping on underpriced items hardly makes them "scam artists." | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com | | See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Robert Heinlein FAQ | | and information on "Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion" | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:58:31 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: eBay Fraudulant Bidding Warning Various people have written about a simple fraud scheme by which a scammer will use a second identity to put in an outrageously high bid for an item, but withdraw it at the last moment, in order to secure the item at a much lower price. The obvious question is, why does eBay allow people to retract bids at all? That's not standard procedure at any "real live" auction I've ever seen. The only way to stop this form of fraud is for eBay to make it clear to all bidders that any bid they make is legally binding and CANNOT be withdrawn. If there is some problem with the winning bid, then the auction is nullified and the seller has the option to take the next highest bid, OR to put the item up for a new auction, or to simply withdraw the item, entirely at the SELLER's discretion. End of problem. At the very least, eBay should implement a system in which, if the winning bid is retracted within the last 15 minutes of bidding, the bidding is automatically extended by half an hour, and anyone following that auction gets a nice splash-screen to notify them. Alternately, simply allow the seller the option of voiding any auction in which the highest bid was retracted. (Of course, then you get into problems of fraud on the other side -- the seller could use a second identity to put in and then retract a high bid, just to void the sale.) This business that the seller is legally bound, but the buyer is not, is ludicrous. Shame on eBay for not seeing this coming, and especially shame on eBay for not responding more promptly and prudently. ------------------------------ From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: eBay Fraudulant Bidding Warning Organization: St. Peter's College, US Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:38:28 GMT David Massey writes: > I'm always going to set a reserve price now that I read this! I have > seen some people get scammed into selling very valuable things for a > couple dollars because they did not set a reserve and they started the > bid at a few bucks. The scam artist comes in with a hidden identity > or a temporary email address and rips you off. There's some confusion here. On eBay, a "reserve" is a minimum acceptable bid amount known only to the seller. Sellers can list an item with any start- ing price they want (which is shown on the item page), without needing to make it a reserve auction. The choice of which (or both) to use is up to the seller, and depends on a number of factors. A seller might put an expensive item out with a reserve of $500 (which isn't visible to any buyers) and a starting price of $1. This is done to attract > 30 bids, which puts it in the "Hot!" category. The fact remains that these two mechanisms (reserve and initial price) exist, and are *set* by the *seller*. Unless a seller doesn't care that an item goes for an insanely low price, they will use at least one of these methods to set the level of a minimum winning bid. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.spc.edu St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA +1 201 915 9381 (voice) +1 201 435-3662 (FAX) ------------------------------ From: Dave Kitabjian Reply-To: dave@netcarrier.com Subject: Phone Database Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:11:23 -0400 Organization: NetCarrier Hello! We are looking for a datafile which will contain a complete (and updated) list of area codes, exchanges, regions (central offices), and the other areacode/exchanges to which they are "local", based on local calling plan services. A file available either as a CD or via FTP would by ideal. Can you help us? Thanks! Dave NetCarrier ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:52:55 -0700 From: Derek J. Balling Subject: Re: Visa Check Cards > That is completely correct information for VISA Checkcards. For > Mastercard MasterMoney offline (offline meaning that it goes through > the mastercard network, not a debit network like cirrus or Honor) > Cards, there is a credit line for such an occasion. Unlike VISA, MC > will not lock your funds when a transaction is authorized. If you > withdrawl the funds, it will use the credit line and charge you any > interest as well. This is why you need to get a credit line linked > for a Mastercard debit card account. That is the main difference > between VISA and MC debit products. Ummm, I don't think so. I had a MC debit card with no credit line. It behaved identically in all cases (that I saw) to a Visa debit card. Trust me, there was NO credit associated with that MC debit card. :) (If there were, I never would have been granted one *g*) D ------------------------------ From: Klassen@UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) Subject: Re: VISA Cheque Cards (Does Ralph Nader Have a Credit Card?) Date: 29 Jul 1999 01:34:03 GMT Organization: University of Victoria On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 18:24:39, sean@sdg.dra.com (Sean Donelan) wrote: > Derek Balling writes: >> (I challenge someone to get a rental car without a credit card ... >> I've never had any luck regardless of how much cash I offered to >> leave as a deposit). > Allegedly Ralph Nader doesn't have any credit cards, yet he seems to > be able to obtain rental cars. Does he pay, file an expense-report, and later get reimbursed from his employer? Or, has his employer issued a "business-use-only" credit-card to him, so that his employer is renting the vehicle? Technically, he still could have no "personal" credit-card, although he has been authorized to use a "corporate" credit-card. ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) Date: 29 Jul 1999 03:07:22 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: VISA Authorizations Here is another good one. In April of this year I rented a car from Enterprise Renta Car while mine with being repaired. My insurance paid for most of the cost and when I returned the car I paid that amount in cash. An authorization never is canceled and it does clear out, but they could enter a charge and it would go through under that authorization, which is what happened, not once but twice in two months. Each time they agency refunded the money, not issuing a credit. My bank informed me that this could keep on forever and that even if I closed the account, or opened one under a different number it still could go through. I have sent a very stiff letter to them on my feeling on that and will not be renewing my account with them, nor will I even use a credit card for renting a car unless it is a straight charge for the max the charge could be; most of the time I know what the total will be as it is only when mine is in for repair. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one, have you hunted one down today? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:20:22 -0400 From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Would Uncle Sam Like to Spy on You? An item I thought some of you might be interested in seeing about allegations that Uncle Sugar is sticking his nose in your business once again: Here is a story from ZDnet which I recommend: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2304083,00.html "U.S. backs off private monitoring" "Under attack for its 'Cold War mentality,' the U.S. denies it plans to monitor private networks." No comments on this end; not today at least. I've already occupied too much space in the Digest for this week. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:02:47 -0400 From: David Massey Subject: Last Laugh! More 1999 Darwin Awards Yes, it is the 1999 Darwin Awards. For those sheltered few of you who are not fully aware of the Darwin Awards; these awards are given annually (and posthumously) to those individuals who did the most for the human gene pool by removing themselves from it. GRAVITY KILLS A 22-year-old Reston man was found dead yesterday after he tried to use 'occy' straps (the stretchy little ropes with hooks on each end) to bungee jump off a 70-foot railroad trestle, police said. Fairfax County police said Eric A. Barcia, a fast-food worker, taped a bunch of these straps together, wrapped an end around one foot, anchored the other end to the trestle at Lake Accotink Park, then jumped... and hit the pavement! Warren Carmichael, a police spokesman, said investigators think Barcia was alone because his car was found nearby. "The length of the cord that he had assembled was greater than the distance between the trestle and the ground," Carmichael said. Police say the apparent cause of death was "major trauma." An autopsy is scheduled for later in the week. LAUNCHED ON THE FOURTH OF JULY Three young men in Oklahoma were enjoying the upcoming Fourth of July holiday and wanted to apparently test fire some fireworks. Their only real problem was that their launch pad and seating arrangements were atop a several hundred thousand gallon fuel distillation storage tank. Oddly enough, some fumes were ignited, producing a fireball seen for miles. They were launched several hundred feet into the air and were found dead 250 yards from their respective seats. DON'T ASK GOD TO PROVE HIMSELF, HE JUST MIGHT A lawyer and two buddies were fishing on Caddo Lake in Texas when a lightning storm hit the lake. Most of the other boats immediately headed for the shore, but not our friend the lawyer. On the rear of his aluminum bass boat with his buddies, this individual stood up, spread his arms wide (crucifixion style) and shouted: "HERE I AM LORD, LET ME HAVE IT!" Needless to say, God delivered. The other two passengers on the boat survived the lightning strike with minor burns. CATCH A man in Alabama died from rattlesnake bites. Big deal you may say, but there's a twist here that makes him a candidate. It seems he and a friend were playing catch with a rattlesnake. You can guess what happened from here. The friend (a future Darwin Awards candidate) was hospitalized. THEY SAY THOSE THINGS WILL KILL YOU Not much was given to me on this unlucky fellow, but he qualifies nonetheless. You see, there was a gentleman from Korea who was killed by his cell phone ... more or less. He was doing the usual "walking and talking" when he walked into a tree and managed to somehow break his neck. Keep that in mind the next time you decide to drive and dial at the same time. GIMME A LIGHT In a west Texas town, employees in a medium-sized warehouse noticed the smell of gas. Sensibly, management evacuated the building, extinguishing all potential sources of ignition-lights, power, etc. After the building had been evacuated, two technicians from the gas company were dispatched. Upon entering the building, they found they had difficulty navigating in the dark. To their frustration, none of the lights worked. Witnesses later described the vision of one of the technicians reaching into his pocket and retrieving an object that resembled a lighter. Upon operation of the lighter-like object, the gas in the warehouse exploded, sending pieces of it up to three miles away. Nothing was found of the technicians, but the lighter was virtually untouched by the explosion. The technician that was suspected of causing the explosion had never been thought of as "bright" by his peers. RUNNER UP A Vermont native, Ronald Demuth, found himself in a difficult position yesterday. While touring the Eagle's Rock African Safari (Zoo) with a group of thespians from St. Petersburg, Russia, Mr. Demuth went overboard to show them one of America's many marvels. He demonstrated the effectiveness of "Crazy Glue"... the hard way. Apparently, Mr. Demuth wanted to demonstrate just how good the adhesive was, so he put about 3 ounces of the adhesive in the palms of his hands, and jokingly placed them on the buttocks of a passing rhino. The rhino, a resident of the zoo for the past thirteen years, was not initially startled as it has been part of the petting exhibit since its arrival as a baby. However, once it became aware of its being involuntarily stuck to Mr. Demuth, it began to panic and ran around the petting area wildly making Mr. Demuth an unintended passenger. "Sally [the rhino] hasn't been feeling well lately. She had been very constipated. We had just given her a laxative and some depressants to relax her bowels, when Mr. Demuth played his juvenile prank," said James Douglass, caretaker. During Sally's tirade two fences were destroyed, a shed wall was gored, and a number of small animals escaped. Also, during the stampede, three pygmy goats and one duck were stomped to death. As for Demuth, it took a team of medics and zoo caretakers' to remove his hands from her buttocks. First, the animal had to be captured and calmed down. However, during this process the laxatives began to take hold and Mr. Demuth was repeatedly showered with over 30 gallons of rhino diarrhea. "It was tricky. We had to calm her down, while at the same time shield our faces from being pelted with rhino dung. I guess you could say that Mr. Demuth was into it up to his neck. Once she was under control, we had three people with shovels working to keep an air passage open for Mr. Demuth. We were able to tranquilize her and apply a solvent to remove his hands from her rear," said Douglass. "I don't think he'll be playing with Crazy Glue for a while." Meanwhile, the Russians, while obviously amused, also were impressed with the power of the adhesive. "I'm going to buy some for my children, but of course they can't take it to the zoo," commented Vladimir Zolnikov, leader of the troupe. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #262 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 30 02:52:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA03874; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:52:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:52:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907300652.CAA03874@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #263 TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Jul 99 02:52:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 263 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Tutorial: How to Present Audio/Video at Your Site (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered (Dave O'Shea) Re: eBay Tries to Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco (Anthony Argyriou) Re: eBay Fradulent High Roller Bidders (Michael Maxfield) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Fred Goldstein) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (Derek J. Balling) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (Bill Newkirk) Feature Group D (David Koppman) British Telecom to Provide ADSL in 10 UK Cities (Paul Robinson) Re: PacBell PCS and IXO/TAP Protocol (J.F. Mezei) Payphone Documentation and Key Wanted (BMarcus826@aol.com) Re: VISA Authorizations (Steven J. Sobol) Re: VISA Authorizations (J.F. Mezei) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 01:22:22 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Tutorial: How to Present Audio/Video at Your Site I have received some notes in the past couple days asking how to go about coding a web page to include a plug-in for audio/video. I decided to prepare this tutorial for readers. Below is the code I use in my various pages. I will explain it as we look at it. You would do up your page in the usual way with desired colors, etc and then insert what follows below at the place where you want it on the page. The XMP is not part of the code, it is only used here to prevent browsers which see this message from attempting to act on it. You would start with the OBJECT ID part. <OBJECT ID=video1 CLASSID="clsid:CFCDAA03-8BE4-11cf-B84B-0020AFBBCCFA" HEIGHT=200 WIDTH=242> <PARAM NAME="controls" VALUE="ImageWindow"> <PARAM NAME="console" VALUE="Clip1"> <PARAM NAME="autostart" VALUE="true"> <PARAM NAME="src" VALUE="some .ram or .rpm file name here"> <EMBED SRC="same .ram or .rpm as above" type="audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin" CONSOLE="Clip1" CONTROLS="ImageWindow" HEIGHT=200 WIDTH=242 AUTOSTART=true> </OBJECT> <OBJECT ID=video1 CLASSID="clsid:CFCDAA03-8BE4-11cf-B84B-0020AFBBCCFA" HEIGHT=30 WIDTH=242> <PARAM NAME="controls" VALUE="ControlPanel"> <PARAM NAME="console" VALUE="Clip1"> <EMBED type="audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin" CONSOLE="Clip1" CONTROLS="ControlPanel" HEIGHT=30 WIDTH=242 AUTOSTART=true> </OBJECT> I suggest you copy it just like it is above, making only these changes as discussed below. Be careful not to change the wrong things. The first instance of HEIGHT and WIDTH is for the display picture. 200x242 gets you the little viewing window. Bear in mind some producers make things for bigger or smaller windows. If you see the picture is too squeezed together or too stretched out or whatever, adjust this accordingly, but the above should work pretty well for most things. Set it differently depending on the esthetics or layout of your web page also. If you are presenting *audio only* then set the measurements to 0x0 to have the box out of the way entirely but do not remove the reference to the box. For the controls parameter, you *must* have an ImageWindow. Do not remove it. Some of the parameters can be changed around, but not that one. Likewise, leave 'Clip1' alone. Autostart is true if you want the program to begin playing when the page is loaded; it is false if you want the user to start the program on his own. The 'src' parameter is the name of the file you wish to play. The value always needs to be an explicit path. For example, your src might be 'http://stream.ap.org/audioupdate.ram' Likewise the EMBED SRC is set equal to the same as above. Do not tamper with the MIME types following unless you know what you are doing. There is little or no reason to change them. For the ImageWindow set it to the same values as above. If you are playing audio only, set them to zero, but *do not* remove it totally. Now in the second part, (or the third occurrance) of HEIGHT and WIDTH, these values represent the size of the little control panel which appears under the picture (or alone if picture size is zero). In the example given, 30x242 fixes things so it is high enough to be easily read, and exactly as wide across as the picture above it. You can make this narrower or longer as you wish, and the exact size depends on the types of controls you intend to give your users. For the PARAM NAME 'controls' in this case, several values are possible. They are: (make sure you spell them like I have them) None The control panel is invisible, if audio/video is set to autostart, user has no control over it; it just starts playing and plays out to conclusion. Obviously if not on autostart you can't use 'None'. PlayButton On the page is displayed just two buttons, one for on and one for off. User can listen/view or not listen/view as desired. ControlPanel On and off button, and a slider which indicates how far along into the presentation you have gotten. InfoVolumePanel A little box which tells about the presentation and a volume control slider. StatusBar A little strip which says things like 'connecting' or 'network congestion'; also the amount of time the presentation has played and its total length of time. All All of the above. You can use the above in various combinations as desired, limited only to the extent they make sense in how you have them arranged. Do NOT put any space between the commas. For example, ControlPanel,InfoVolumePanel is an acceptable combination. ControlPanel,StatusBar is an acceptable combination. Make sure the 'controls' param value and the later CONTROLS do not conflict. The exact size for the controls depends on how many you display. In the 30x242 example above, a slider bar with on/ off buttons are adequately displayed. If the 'controls' param value was 'All' (and the later CONTROLS=All) then your height needs to be closer to 100, in the 90-110 range, for them all to be nicely viewable. Remember, always have ImageWindow in the top part (used for viewing) and just set the size to zero if you do not intend to view anything. The first two instances of HEIGHT and WIDTH must be the same values, whatever you pick. The bottom two instances of HEIGHT and WIDTH must be the same values, whatever you pick. If you use my example above, and limit yourself only to making changes on the PARAM NAME 'src' with a VALUE of what you want to see/hear and the line immediatly below it where you EMBED SRC to the same as the 'src' value right above it, you should be okay. And there is no harm done if you leave the ImageWindow size alone; all that will happen is if you play an audio only presentation, the little window will just stay dark throughout it all. You might like to set the PARAM NAME 'controls' to a VALUE of 'All' to see a nice looking little player control panel displayed on your screen next to the little square where the video plays out. For convenience, just cut and paste my code above onto your page, then change those few entries mentioned here. Browser variations: For both Netscape 4.01 and above, and IE4 or IE-5 you should get the same results. But if you make a slight typing error on your page, watch out! IE tries to understand what it is you want, and does pretty well at interpreting it. But Netscape gets completely confused if there is *any* error in the spelling of a PARAM NAME or its associated VALUE. Be sure and "quote" all values. Here are a few examples for the PARAM NAME 'src' VALUE= and the EMBED SRC= line right below it. But you will find thousands of these on the net. Use common courtesy in your use of the .ram and .rpm files from those locations. Do not disguise the origin of the material, nor make claims about ownership. Do not resell it or advertise around it. "http://stream.ap.org/audioupdate.ram" "http://www.broadcast.com/cnn/audioselect/cnnhn.rpm" (CNN headlines) "http://www.broadcast.com/cnn/audioselect/cnncn.rpm" (CNN programming) "http://www.csmonitor.com/audio/newscast.ram" "http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/audio/world_summary.ram" Find your own; do not use the above except as examples to help get started, and check your work. There are plenty of news and music sources to choose from. ---------------------- Now suppose you want a choice of several things available on your page, so that users can pick one or another. There are a couple of ways to go about it. One method is to make several pages, all identical in content except for the lines specifying the VALUE for PARAM NAME src and EMBED SRC. Put links to all the pages with easy to associate names for each page such as monitor.html, CNNhead.html, ap-news.html and so forth. Click on a link, go to that page and the appropriate .ram gets called. A second method, which takes a bit more work produces somewhat nicer results. In that method, you use an HTML form, in a javascript, with the form output passed by javascript to 'document.write', in the middle of the player plug-in code. It is not as hard as it sounds. Note this example: (Your form goes here, with 'radio' buttons for selections or maybe a drop-down list of options, etc). Do this in javascript with the output of the form being assigned to 'userchoice', as in userchoice = whatever the form output Now start the plugin player code: <OBJECT ID=video1 CLASSID="clsid:CFCDAA03-8BE4-11cf-B84B-0020AFBBCCFA" HEIGHT=200 WIDTH=242> <PARAM NAME="controls" VALUE="ImageWindow"> <PARAM NAME="console" VALUE="Clip1"> <PARAM NAME="autostart" VALUE="true"> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript"> <--! document.write("<PARAM NAME='src' VALUE="+userchoice+">"+"<br>"+"<EMBED SRC="+userchoice+" "); !--> </SCRIPT> type="audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin" CONSOLE="Clip1" CONTROLS="ImageWindow" HEIGHT=200 WIDTH=242 AUTOSTART=true> </OBJECT> <OBJECT ID=video1 CLASSID="clsid:CFCDAA03-8BE4-11cf-B84B-0020AFBBCCFA" HEIGHT=30 WIDTH=242> <PARAM NAME="controls" VALUE="ControlPanel"> <PARAM NAME="console" VALUE="Clip1"> <EMBED type="audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin" CONSOLE="Clip1" CONTROLS="ControlPanel" HEIGHT=30 WIDTH=242 AUTOSTART=true> </OBJECT> Notice we have the very same code as originally used, but this time we are letting the value for 'src' and EMBED SRC get written into the player code at the last minute. The value of 'userchoice' gets written at the last minute, on the fly to be the value for 'src' and EMBED SRC. Notice how the document.write in the example above simply writes out the very same lines as in our original example. Using document.write with the need to quote your values can get very devilish at times; make sure you start and close with a double quote, and use a single quote on both sides of the values in question. If, God forbid, you run into a situation where you need a quote within a quote to keep something clearly understood by the browser, then you use [] as a third set of quotes. Yes, open and close brackets function as open and close quotes if necessary. So now you present the user with the video screen and player controls and in addition a bunch of little 'radio buttons' above it to make a choice of what he wants to listen to or view. But using forms within javascript and passing the output value from the form to the player plug-in is a bit beyond the scope of my tutorial today, so I will not say anymore about it now. Perhaps later if readers are interested. First, try to make your own plug-in as described above with simple calls to various URLs for what you want to play. This tutorial has been presented as a public service. It is intended to help netizens obtain the audio-visuals they want from web sites where the site is otherwise ugly, or the people who run it are ugly and distempered, or where they toss advertising at you all the time and hassle you with a lot of personal questions or try and get you to register so they can spam you later, etc. It is NOT to be used as a way to cheat other honest and creative netizens, who have prepared a 'whole presentation' from being allowed to show you all of their work in the context they desire. It is NOT to be used as a way to 'sneak in the back door' at porno sites and look at pictures or listen to sounds that you did not pay at the front door to see or hear. In a future tutorial, we will look at ways to make your Personal Player a little more elegant; with a selection of choices for listening and viewing easily selectable. We will look at ways to attach your Personal Player plug-in to a file you send someone, so they can easily view or listen to the file you sent them. Thanks for reading! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Dave O'Shea Subject: Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered Organization: snaip.net Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:25:00 GMT Monty Solomon wrote in message news:telecom19. 261.5@telecom-digest.org: > A new breed of Internet service provider is emerging to serve the > needs of parents and others who want access to an Internet free of > pornography, bomb-making information, hate advocacy and other > perceived ills. They are called "filtered ISPs," and they exist to > make it easy for families and others to keep arguably objectionable > material off their computer screens. > http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/07/cyber/education/28education.html The only problem is that most, if not all, of these efforts, are complete failures. Here's a group that checked several of the best-funded and largest-selling systems, and found that they not only fail to block most of the "offensive" sites, but the DO block a number of educational, useful, and well-policed sites. http://www.censorware.org/press/press_07-28-99.html Think of it as putting Barney Fife in charge of the nation's highway system. The results are not going to be pretty. ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: eBay Tries to Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:12:27 GMT Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) wrote: > I've never liked eBay's setup. I was first exposed to online auctions > through Onsale (http://www.onsale.com), and like both their interface > and policies. Onsale's "Yankee" auctions have a "closing" date/time, > but auctions will be extended by 10 minutes after the last bid. Which > means an auction can go for a lot longer than the presumed closing > time, if bids are active. > Of course, I tend to use the auctions to buy stuff not sell stuff, so > I can't say if Onsale's policies in regards to selling stuff are > substantially similar to eBays. I had the opposite reaction to Onsale -- their policies seem to be set up to favor the seller more than eBay. The "yankee auction" is different from a traditional Dutch Auction in that you pay what you bid, even if the clearing price is much lower. Allowing auctions to stay open overtime is also calculated to increase the price the seller gets. I don't want to have to sit at my computer, hitting re-load over and over to keep trying to get something I want (IIRC, there is no limit to the amount of time an auction can be extended, as long as there's a new bid every five minutes). On eBay, I win, or I lose. When it's over, it's over (unless there was a crash ...). If I had several items of computer equipment, I think I'd prefer Onsale (unless their commission is higher), but for buying, I like eBay, and will only go to Onsale if prices are better. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ Subject: eBay Fradulent High Roller Bidders Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:42:48 PDT From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael Maxfield) Gary Pratt wrote: > Whose fault is it that the reserve price was set too low? A reserve > price represents the price that a person is willing to sell an item > for. If the seller hasn't done their due diligence to determine the > fair market value for their item, that's the seller's fault. Sorry Gary, but you don't understand the word FAIR. A seller has the right offer his item for competative bidding. Even if the seller set his reserve price at a level he is willing to sell the item for, other willing buyers are not allowed to enter their competitive bid under such a scenario. Think this through ... Seller posts an item for a min $5 bid, and item for which $50 might be the highest ever expected on the free market. Buyer A comes along and bids $5 for the item. Buyer A obtains a second account as buyer Z and bids $75. Buyer B comes along, willing to go up to $20 on such and item, sees the $75 bid and exclaims "I ain't that crazy. No Way!" Buyer C comes along and while willing to pay upwards of $30, also goes running away upon seeing the outrageous bid. Buyer Z returns before the end of the auction and retracts the $75 bid, and as Buyer A is able to get the item for the opening bid of $5. Is that fair? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:18:43 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' At 01:00 PM 7/28/1999 -0400, Daniel Ganek wrote: > Why can't the FCC mandate that 10 digit dialing ALWAYS works? You have it wrong. They should mandate that *11* digit dialing ALWAYS works. You can't make 10-digit work, because it's ambiguous: Is that a prefix or an area code you're dialing? If you dialed 508-905-9901, does it stop and 508-9059 because 508's a valid local prefix? The whole point of the 1+ was to separate the two. Of course it became known as a toll prefix, so in many areas it is, but you *must* use the 1+ to distinguish between a prefix and an area code. Only in some areas do they "protect" local area codes from being used as prefix codes, and that gets harder and harder. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:54:38 -0700 From: Derek J. Balling Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us > In article , Art.Walker@ onesourcetech.com says: >> It sounds like the real problem is that Universal needs to configure >> their web server to check HTTP_REFERER values and redirect "illegal" >> links back to their main page. > That would stop linking. However, it would not stop people > from retyping the link on their browser URL field. Yeah it would. if ($ENV{'HTTP_REFERER'} !~ /^http://[^/]*universal.com/?) { print "Location: http://www.universal.com/\r\n\r\n"; } else { provide_data(); } A null string (no referer, e.g., bookmark or braindead browser) triggers the first case. A bad referer triggers the first case. Only a referer which starts "http://" contains any number of characters (other than "/") followed by universal.com, with an optional "/" following it will be accepted. (Anything past the optional "/" is ignored by that regular expression.) And the world is a better place without paying lawyers lots of money to be jerks. Reference: _Mastering_Regular_Expressions_, Jeffrey E.F. Friedl, O'Reilly and Associates. And I'm not just recommending it because he sits in the cubicle next to me, I'm saying it because aspiring web developers who write in Perl should read it, know it, live it, so they can do things like that above instead of relying on lawyers. D ------------------------------ From: Bill Newkirk Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 23:26:39 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com I believe this was also because they were partners (through MCA) in the Laserdisc system and wanted to sell Alfred Hitchcock movies to everyone. Ed Ellers wrote in message ... > Don't forget that Universal was the first studio to sue to try to get > off-air home video recording banned (Disney joined the lawsuit later). ------------------------------ Subject: Feature Group D From: eldot@sdf.lonestar.org (David Koppman) Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 01:22:18 GMT I was wondering how I would go about making a Feature Group D request and get a special use CIC? I suppose you could almost consider this a request for proposals ... needed, 1-900, 10-1xxxx, 800-calling card; no equipment; billing done by provider, per second on provider side, six-second on user side. I've got too much information here not to be doing anything with it. eldot@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org ------------------------------ From: rfc1394a@aol.com (Paul Robinson) Date: 30 Jul 1999 01:46:28 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: British Telecom to Provide ADSL in 10 UK Cities In a story announced on Silicon.com British Telecom will offer ADSL in the UK's 10 largest cities by upgrading 400 exchanges by March, 2000. The first 67 exchanges will be done by October of this year. The cities to be served will include 'Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow and London'. Fixed prices will start at 40 per month for the service. 'BT will offer services through BT Interactive but all the major service providers including AOL, Sky and MSN will also have the opportunity to provide their own bundled services. BT CEO Sir Peter Bonfield, said competition will create "a whole raft of new and innovative offerings".' BT is not considered a responsive company according to some analysts, thus this may provide a benefit for other companies who might be more agressive in their marketing of the always-on connectivity service. Paul Robinson ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: PacBell PCS and IXO/TAP Protocol Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:11:23 -0400 Derek J. Balling wrote: > I keep running into problems, however, with PacBell PCS customers. I > can send pages to our CellOnePCS customers just fine, but when I try > to deliver a page to PacBell PCS's modem ports, I consistently get: > message rejected > page failed, id=GcXy0000, from=dballing, to=testuser, parts=1 : Not > accepted - MSGTRN contents format incorrect (0x00004) PACbell run GSM mobile phones. TAP sends an SMS message to the phone NUMBER. So the destination should be in +1aaannxxxxx format. (the + may be optional). Also, remember that contents are limited to 160 characters. ------------------------------ From: BMarcus826@aol.com Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:32:20 EDT Subject: Payphone Documents and Key Wanted I have an AT&T payphone that I would like to convert for use in my home. Looking for information, also need to locate a key to open the telephone. Would appreciate any suggestions. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: VISA Authorizations Date: 30 Jul 1999 00:30:01 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:46:24 GMT, sunspace@interlog.com.placeholder allegedly said: > This is the kind of thing the federal and provincial governments > should hold up to the light, when the banks request permission to > merge, or an inquiry is conducted into gas-price collusion. Gas-price collusion ...? The oil companies don't have any control whatsoever over the bank policies and the policies set by the cc processors. I don't agree with their pricing policies either, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. I feel much the same way as you do. On the other hand, as a credit card merchant, I understand the occasional need to hold off sending an authorized transaction to be processed. My thoughts on how the situation could be made better: (a) if there is a hold time, the law should require that all credit card processors and banks make the funds unavailable for the *same* amount of time no matter which card, bank or processor is used. (b) on occasions when an authorized transaction can't be processed immediately, a separate type of authorization should be required and the merchant should be required to make the customer aware that a certain percentage of their credit line will be unavailable for X days. On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 22:35:00 +0100, graeme@graemet.demon.co.uk allegedly said: > That "end of day" processing happens whenever the merchant feels like > it, although there is often something in the contract between the > merchant and the acquirer to prevent the merchant from doing it too > often. On the other side of the coin, processors try to encourage merchants not to wait. My company gives better discount rates to those people who send batches daily, before a certain time of day. This has benefits to both the merchant and the customer, in my opinion. > It sounds, from the story, as though the manager of the gas > station did not do those uploads at the weekend, but waited until Monday > night. It's not particularly friendsly of him, but he's within his > rights. Right, but ... I'm surprised there was a long wait. Again drawing from my experience working for BP: This particular station was one of the first in Ohio to have pay-at-the-pump. The technology has changed since then, but the process should still be the same: BP's EPOS (electronic point-of-sale) terminals, which are also in use at many other service stations, automatically transmit the batch once every 100 transactions. At a busy station like the one where I worked, this can end up being three or four batches per day. I wonder how busy this particular Esso station was. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: VISA Authorizations Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 20:59:39 -0400 I don't drive, so this does not affect me. However, in self-serve automated stations, I would have thought that one would have entered the credit card, punched in a maximum amount, and then an authorisation taken for that amount only (with the gas pump stopping at that amount). ? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #263 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 30 15:10:20 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA25804; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:10:20 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907301910.PAA25804@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #264 TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Jul 99 15:10:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 264 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bring Us Broadband (Monty Solomon) Book Review: ISDN and Broadband ISDN With Frame Relay and ATM (Rob Slade) Is Cisco Choking Broadband Pipes? (Monty Solomon) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered (Adam Frix) Re: World's First "Real Time PC to Fax" From bcmfax.net (Richard Shockey) Re: eBay Fradulent High Roller Bidders (James Gifford) Re: eBay Fradulent High Roller Bidders (Carl Navarro) Re: eBay Fraudulant Bidding Warning (Matthew Black) Re: eBay Tries to Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco (Craig Williamson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 01:22:27 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Bring Us Broadband http://www.netaction.org/monitor/mon40.html#broadband Published by NetAction Issue No. 40 July 29, 1999 Bring Us Broadband A high-stakes debate is taking place in communities throughout the United States, and the outcome will determine how soon -- and under what conditions -- high-speed Internet access is offered via broadband cable. NetAction is launching a campaign to educate consumers about the advantages of competitive deployment of high-speed Internet access. On one side of the debate is AT&T, which until 1984 was the nation's monopoly telephone company, and still controls more than half of the long distance market. On the other side is America Online (AOL), the nation's largest Internet service provider, allied with GTE and the Regional Bell Operating Companies. AOL is also financing No Gatekeepers, a coalition of consumer groups backing AOL's position. As a longtime consumer advocate, I've seen my share of corporate posturing, but the unholy alliance of AOL, GTE, and the Bells raises hypocrisy to new heights. Under the guise of a call for "open access," these companies have launched a massive lobbying campaign to convince federal, state and local officials, as well as consumers, that AT&T should be forced to provide its competitors with access to the broadband cable network it is spending over $100 billion to deploy. In essence, AT&T's competitors want to benefit from the company's investment without risking their own capital. It's a sweet deal for AT&T's competitors. And by couching this lobbying effort as a call for "open access," AOL and its allies have managed to convince a few local officials and consumer groups that it's also good for consumers. Nothing could be further from the truth. GTE and the Bells are the very same companies that have maintained monopoly control of local phone service by using every regulatory and legal trick in the book to avoid opening their own networks to competitors - as they were mandated to do three years ago when Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996. And AOL is the company that recently declared its millions of customers "off limits" to instant messaging via software provided by companies other than AOL. If that's an example of AOL's commitment to "open access," consumers have good reason to be worried. That's why Internet users who want competitive choices in high-speed Internet access should support the "hands off" approach to Internet regulation that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has used for nearly 30 years. As a recent FCC Working Paper pointed out, this "hands off" approach is working. See: . The Bells and GTE have for years had the technical ability to offer high-speed Internet access over the phone network via digital subscriber line (DSL) service. But they didn't start offering their own high-speed Internet service until competition began to emerge via broadband cable modems. Then, when competition finally developed, the telcos enlisted AOL's help in demanding that government regulate the new technology. This is nothing more than a ploy to slow down competition for both Internet access and local phone service. NetAction does not believe regulation is necessary to ensure that consumers have choices in high-speed Internet access. Wireless technology is being developed, and competition from cable broadband is already motivating local phone companies to offer DSL service at competitive prices. The "forced access" being advocated by AOL, GTE, and the Bells will simply delay competition and effectively deny consumers the benefits Congress promised when it passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That's why NetAction is launching Bring Us Broadband, an Internet outreach campaign to educate consumers about the advantages of competitive deployment of high-speed Internet access, and alert consumers to opportunities to speak out against proposals to regulate access to cable broadband that threaten to delay the introduction of competitive high-speed Internet service. The Bring Us Broadband campaign, at: , includes background on the issue, information on how to speak up, and links to other resources. We are also inviting Internet users to subscribe to a new email alert list, Broadband Briefings. Subscribers will be alerted to opportunities to speak out before local, state, and federal officials as they consider this issue. To subscribe to Broadband Briefings: Send an email message to: majordomo@netaction.org In the message body, type: subscribe broadband Copyright 1999 by NetAction/The Tides Center. All rights reserved. Material may be reposted or reproduced for non-commercial use provided NetAction is cited as the source. NetAction is a project of The Tides Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:43:53 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "ISDN and Broadband ISDN with Frame Relay and ATM" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKISFRAT.RVW 990513 "ISDN and Broadband ISDN with Frame Relay and ATM", William Stallings, 1999, 0-13-973744-8 %A William Stallings ws@shore.net %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1999 %G 0-13-973744-8 %I Prentice Hall %O 800-576-3800 416-293-3621 201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 %P 542 p. %T "ISDN and Broadband ISDN with Frame Relay and ATM" When Stallings' name is on the cover, you generally know two things: 1) the book is a textbook. 2) the book is a classic reference in the field. Chapter one is an introduction, both to the book as a whole, and to the drive towards broadband communications. Part one is an overview of the basic concepts in digital communications. Chapter two looks at analogue and digital information. The problems and protocols of the subscriber line are reviewed in chapter three. The fundamental ideas of networking are explored in chapter four. Part two turns to the specifics of ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) itself. Chapter five lays out the foundations for ISDN, making a number of points that generally get lost in the "gee whiz" over high speed Internet access. The architecture and components are given in chapter six. Details are provided, in chapters seven to eleven, on the physical layer, data link layer, network layer, services, and Signalling System Number 7. The relation of frame relay to ISDN is discussed in part three. Chapter twelve talks about frame mode architecture, and the reduction in overhead as compared to packet switching such as X.25. Congestion is a part of any packet network, and chapter thirteen looks at the various answers provided by frame relay. Part four moves on to broadband ISDN. The overall architecture is reviewed in chapter fourteen. Chapter fifteen looks in detail at the protocols, starting to consider ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) and SONET (Synchronous Optical Network). Part five deals more particularly with ATM. Chapter sixteen deals with components and performance. Traffic and congestion issues are covered in chapter seventeen. Ancillary material for use in a course is well prepared and presented. Most chapters have a summary, suggestions for further reading, and exercises. The questions are well thought out, and sometimes very thought provoking indeed. Some chapters have appendices, giving additional content related to the topic at hand. A Web page at http://www.shore.net/~ws/ISDN4e.html provides further elements for use by instructors. Solid coverage of a hot topic. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKISFRAT.RVW 990513 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. - Mark Twain http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 23:40:09 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Is Cisco Choking Broadband Pipes? By Elizabeth Wasserman WASHINGTON - As Cisco Systems helps build broadband Internet access through the nation's cable systems, the company isn't just dreaming about giving cable companies a way to speed access to certain Web sites and slow access to others. They're bragging about it. http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,5699,00.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:54:38 -0700 From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us Derek J. Balling > That would stop linking. However, it would not stop people >> from retyping the link on their browser URL field. > Yeah it would. > if ($ENV{'HTTP_REFERER'} !~ /^http://[^/]*universal.com/?) > { > print "Location: http://www.universal.com/\r\n\r\n"; > } > else > { > provide_data(); > } > A null string (no referer, e.g., bookmark or braindead browser) triggers > the first case. A bad referer triggers the first case. Only a referer which > starts "http://" contains any number of characters (other than "/") > followed by universal.com, with an optional "/" following it will be > accepted. (Anything past the optional "/" is ignored by that regular > expression.) That seems to work pretty well. I tried it last night on test.html, a page of mine where I conduct experiments and debug my work before putting my work on line. But I propose a different scenario. Suppose I do not even try to go to the page at all, but merely aim for the .ram and .rpi wherever it happens to be located at the site? In other words, he says stay off of his deep pages without permission. Come to the top page, worship me and my advertisers, turn over your identity and pay the fee demanded; then *I* will pass you to the deep page where the plugin is established so that you can watch the movie I have. But I respond that I do not need his deep page with his plugin (and probably more advertising) any longer. I have my own player on a sort of 'utility page' stored on my own computer, since on a mailing list I belong to, the moderator gave everyone some free, and simple code for building a player of their own yesterday. Now I just need to browse his directories, note the path to his .ram files and go from there. I have seen lots of stuff like you suggest to keep people off of pages where they were not (prematurely) wanted. How do you keep people out of your directories and keep them from latching your .ram and .rpm files and feeding them through their own players? I don't think you can, but correct me if I am wrong. You may suggest keeping them pretty well hidden with obscure names, and that would slow things down a little, but not stop it entirely. Consider a porn site as one example. This is just an example, but you can see the basic idea. Site XXX has movies available after you pay with your credit card. Now site XXX is like all the others of its kind; it spams everywhere, offering 'free' admission. You get there and find out what they meant to say was free admision to their front page, and a 'trial membership' for $3.95 for a couple days to look at everything else. Unless you specifically cancel that trial membership within a day or so, it converts to a full membership with a monthly charge of some outrageous amount billed automatically to your credit card each month. So I say okay, and use some credit card with five dollars left in credit on it, or maybe I send the guy a money order for the trial membership or whatever and get allowed into of his pages. Maybe I use a regular VISA 'debit card' and then tell my bank to stop payment on subsequent charges from this guy after the intial 'trial membership'. I take that three day period or however long he allows for trial mem- bers and use it to go through every single page he has available. I right click on every page, and examine his page source closely. I make written notes of the path and file name of every .ram I see on those pages. Soon I have a long list of all his .ram and .rpm files available, with the absolute path name to each. I also make note of all his web cam files (I forget the suffix for those files off hand) and keep those on my list. Now I set up my web page with the free plugin code the moderator gave out yesterday, with a script that 'fills in the blanks' for EMBED SRC based on the link chosen or the radio button pushed or whatever, and I tell everyone you can secretly watch the nude teens as they frolic right here, without getting hassled about your credit card and stuff. For that matter, what prevents anyone from going to Universal.com and right clicking on their pages, reviewing their source closely and noting all the .ram addresses and doing the same thing? What prevents you from right-clicking my pages or me right-clicking yours? There is available some javascript which disallows right-clicking and there is the HTML instruction 'NOSAVE' which helps a little, but even if I have to play out his .ram during my three-day trial period, I am going to be able to manually copy all those things seen in the browser address bar am I not? So these folks say 'stay off our deep page'; my answer is I do not need your deep page, I have a page of my own. Shoot me down. Tell me why it won't work. PAT ------------------------------ From: adamf@columbus.rr.com (Adam Frix) Subject: Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:13:09 -0400 Organization: Road Runner Columbus In article , Dave O'Shea wrote: > The only problem is that most, if not all, of these efforts, are > complete failures. Here's a group that checked several of the > best-funded and largest-selling systems, and found that they not only > fail to block most of the "offensive" sites, but the DO block a number > of educational, useful, and well-policed sites. > http://www.censorware.org/press/press_07-28-99.html Why do people call this "censorship"? When a parent stops his child from seeing and reading things that the parent feels are not in the best interests of the child, that is most assuredly NOT "censorship". It's called parenting. Too many people in this world seem to think that everyone should be allowed to see and read whatever he wants -- children included. Worse, too many of those people are nosy busybodies who want to insert themselves between the parent and the child, as if they know better than the parent and are more capable of making that particular decision for the child. Censorship, my foot. Parenting. ------------------------------ From: rshockey@ix.netcom.NsSPaM.com (Richard Shockey) Subject: Re: World's First "Real Time PC to Fax" From bcmfax.net Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:47:32 GMT Organization: Shockey Consulting LLC S. Kaushik wrote: > "Real Time Fax technology over IP" is finally a reality! > With "True Real Time" faxing users will be able to send and receive > faxes in real time and will be able to monitor actual fax delivery > page-by-page directly from their desktops and receive delivery > notification in the same session ! > Fax over IP services through it's 66 member node > operators located across 43 countries) regarding the commercial > availability of world's first Real Time Fax over IP technology . For > more details regarding the availability of Real Time Fax technology > and services, visit http://www.bcmfax.net . Readers of this list should be very very skeptical of this commercial. I've lost count of the Internet Fax service providers out there claiming true real time fax over IP and I have yet to find any that have a reliable or profitable business model. In any scenario it requires a gateway from the GSTN fax machine to the Net and then back to the recipients fax machine or some form of "black box" connecting two machines, usually in a proprietary manner. Almost all of these networks and black boxes are proprietary in one form or another since the vendors have never been able to agree among themselves on interoperabllity or agree on settlements. In both cases the capital cost structure of the gateway network or the total cost ownership of the black boxes don't offer too much real savings unless you are sending huge volumes to a select list of international destinations. Even then corporate buyers should interrogate vendors closely about what network protocols are used. In the real time GSTN Fax world there is only one standard and that is ITU T.38 which is based on H.323. The store and forward ITU T.37 [ actually developed in the IETF as RFC 2305 ] model is nothing more than emailing a MIME attached TIFF file (RFC 2301) to a recipient and requesting receipt using either DSN or MDN notification. Its clean, simple, quite reliable, but yes its not realtime. You can actually buy machines now that allow you to essentially scan to e mail from such vendors as Panasonic, Konica, and Hewlett Packard and there will be a flood of them announced later this year. For more info on the T.37 standards go to: http://www.imc.org/ietf-fax Some of us are looking very seriously at the use of the Internet Print Protocol (IPP) as the basis for a true real time end to end IP facsimile service model. What is fax if not "remote printing". IPP which is based on HTTP transport offers numerous advantages for the transmission of fax like documents over IP networks. Security (TLS/SSL), receipt and notification, very high quality, color, etc. If you are technically minded check it out at: http://www.pwg.org/ipp Regular fax machines are not going to go away ... but there is a lot of work underway to move fax traffic off the GSTN permanently. Richard Shockey Shockey Consulting LLC 8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110 St. Louis, MO 63119 Voice 314.918.9020 FAX 314.918.9015 Internet E-Mail/IFAX rshockey@ix.netcom.com eFAX 815.333.1237 ------------------------------ From: James Gifford Reply-To: gifford@nitrosyncretic.com Organization: Nitrosyncretic Press Subject: Re: eBay Fradulent High Roller Bidders Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:53:25 -0700 Michael Maxfield wrote: > Seller posts an item for a min $5 bid, and item for which $50 might be > the highest ever expected on the free market. > Buyer A comes along and bids $5 for the item. > Buyer A obtains a second account as buyer Z and bids $75. > Buyer B comes along, willing to go up to $20 on such and item, sees > the $75 bid and exclaims "I ain't that crazy. No Way!" > Buyer C comes along and while willing to pay upwards of $30, also goes > running away upon seeing the outrageous bid. > Buyer Z returns before the end of the auction and retracts the $75 > bid, and as Buyer A is able to get the item for the opening bid of $5. > Is that fair? No, but it's also not the way eBay works. Buyer A's bid sets the visible bid at $5.00. Buyer Z's bid sets the visible bid at $5.50 (with a max of $75). Buyer B's bid sets the visible bid at $20.00 (with a max of $75). Buyer C's bid sets the visible bid at $30.00 (with a max of $75). Buyer Z retracts his bid. High bidder is left at Buyer C's bid of $30. There is no way for Buyer B and C to know that the hidden bid is an astronomical amount. They bid the highest they're willing to go. They may or may not care to follow up when their reasonable bids don't make them high bidder, but their bids are still recorded and valid if Buyer Z's bid is retracted. No, it's not "fair" that this can be done. But a reasonable starting price and reserve on the item protect the seller from being scammed out of the item. There are so many bidders on eBay that almost nothing goes for a killer price any more -- at best, it's low-fair, and often, it's higher than a reasonable straight-out sale price. Quit complaining because (on eBay as everywhere else) the unwary can get their ass bitten. | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com | | See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Robert Heinlein FAQ | | and information on "Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion" | ------------------------------ From: cnavarro@wcnet.org (Carl Navarro) Subject: Re: eBay Fradulent High Roller Bidders Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:09:08 GMT Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:42:48 PDT, tweek@netcom.com (Michael Maxfield) wrote: > Gary Pratt wrote: >> Whose fault is it that the reserve price was set too low? A reserve >> price represents the price that a person is willing to sell an item >> for. If the seller hasn't done their due diligence to determine the >> fair market value for their item, that's the seller's fault. > Sorry Gary, but you don't understand the word FAIR. > A seller has the right offer his item for competative bidding. Even if > the seller set his reserve price at a level he is willing to sell the > item for, other willing buyers are not allowed to enter their competitive > bid under such a scenario. > Think this through ... > Seller posts an item for a min $5 bid, and item for which $50 might be > the highest ever expected on the free market. > Buyer A comes along and bids $5 for the item. > Buyer A obtains a second account as buyer Z and bids $75. > Buyer B comes along, willing to go up to $20 on such and item, sees the > $75 bid and exclaims "I ain't that crazy. No Way!" > Buyer C comes along and while willing to pay upwards of $30, also goes > running away upon seeing the outrageous bid. > Buyer Z returns before the end of the auction and retracts the $75 > bid, and as Buyer A is able to get the item for the opening bid of $5. > Is that fair? We must be bidding different auctions :-). In the eight months I've been bidding on eBay, I've retracted bids twice, one was done for me, and never seen one retracted on the stuff I've purchased. I've been offered items as the runner-up, but I find eBay to be pretty fair. If the scenario you've described happens a lot, I just haven't seen it. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: eBay Fraudulant Bidding Warning Date: 30 Jul 1999 15:38:16 GMT In article , terry@spcunb.spc.edu says: > There's some confusion here. On eBay, a "reserve" is a minimum > acceptable bid amount known only to the seller. Sellers can list an > item with any start- ing price they want (which is shown on the item > page), without needing to make it a reserve auction. > The choice of which (or both) to use is up to the seller, and > depends on a number of factors. A seller might put an expensive item > out with a reserve of $500 (which isn't visible to any buyers) and a > starting price of $1. This is done to attract > 30 bids, which puts it > in the "Hot!" category. > The fact remains that these two mechanisms (reserve and initial > price) exist, and are *set* by the *seller*. Unless a seller doesn't > care that an item goes for an insanely low price, they will use at > least one of these methods to set the level of a minimum winning bid. I see a failure by many to recognize that bid withdrawal are unfair to the seller. When the bidding for my item is illegitimately upped by a fictitious bidder, other people are less likely to submit valid bids. If an inflated bid is retracted, I'd be stuck with a lower bid. It's true, a reserve ensures the lower bid meets my minimum requirements. However, I would not be afforded the opportunity for honest competetive bidding because the scam bidder deterrs other honest bidders. In a live auction, a bid cannot be retracted once the paddle has been raised and recognized. -----------------------------(c) 1999 Matthew Black, all rights reserved-- matthew black | Opinions expressed herein belong to me and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer california state university | network services SSA-180E | e-mail: black at csulb dot edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 6D 14 36 ED 5F 34 C4 B3 long beach, ca 90840 | E9 1E F3 CB E7 65 EE BC ------------------------------ From: Craig.Williamson@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Craig Williamson) Subject: Re: eBay Tries to Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco Organization: NCR Date: Fri, 30 Jul 99 12:28:34 GMT In article , Gary Pratt wrote: > The only reason I can think of for a seller to set a reserve price too > low would be to avoid the added fee for a higher value reserve > price. If that's the seller's reason, then you get what you pay for. > I sell on eBay and have never had a problem with this. I've never had > a bid retraction nor have I sold any item for less than the price I > was willing to sell at. Based on the seller's feedback, I've sold many > more items on eBay than he has. > I'm not denying that there are problems with fraudulent bidders on > eBay, but that doesn't absolve the seller of the responsibility to > protect themselves by setting reasonable reserve prices. Well I skip many auctions because it has a reserve price. If you won't sell it for a certain price then start the bidding at that price. I often wait till the reserve has been met then decide I don't want it that badly. If you want $50 for it then start the bidding at $50. Don't hid behind the reserve. Craig Williamson don't step on it." Craig.Williamson@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM -Alf craig@toontown.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (home) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #264 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 30 17:19:11 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA00964; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 17:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 17:19:11 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907302119.RAA00964@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #265 TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Jul 99 17:19:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 265 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AirTouch Launches All-Digital Mobile Internet Service (Monty Solomon) E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" (Rowena Macaraig) Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) (C Navarro) Re: World's First "Real Time PC to Fax" From bcmfax.net (Thor L. Simon) Re: AT&T Bill Dispute Help (David Esan) Re: Phone Database (Jerry Harder) Call Waiting Signal Variations (paul1@nospam.com) Re: eBay Tries to Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco (Daniel Ganek) Re: USF and PICC Charges (John Harris) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:25:29 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AirTouch Launches All-Digital Mobile Internet Service http://www.app.airtouch.com/apps/plsql/pr_view.get_rel?p_rel_id=1540 Jonathan Marshall (415) 658-2209 AIRTOUCH LAUNCHES ALL-DIGITAL MOBILE INTERNET SERVICE Net Access is fastest wireless data service offered by a major U.S. cellular carrier-and includes a direct connection to Internet San Francisco, CA -- AirTouch Cellular today launched Net Access, an all-digital service that lets travelers and mobile workers cut the tether to their desktops and access the Internet, online services or corporate networks while on the go. Armed with a laptop computer and a data-ready AirTouch digital phone, customers in Michigan, Salt Lake City and Seattle can now enjoy the freedom and convenience of Net Access, the fastest and most convenient wireless information service offered by a major U.S. cellular carrier. AirTouch plans to extend the service across most of its footprint by the first quarter of next year. Users at airports, client sites or even the beach can now send and receive e-mail, files and faxes; access their company's intranet; update contacts and schedules; and use the Internet to check a customer's Web site, monitor news and stock prices and review airline schedules-all without having to plug into a telephone line. Net Access is the first of several planned Mobile Internet offerings from AirTouch. Products coming soon will include wireless portal services that work with handheld smart phones and personal digital assistants to facilitate a variety of mobile messaging, information and e-commerce services. "In today's fast-paced world, Net Access will help you stay in touch, manage information more productively and balance your life," said Arun Sarin, CEO of the U.S./Asia-Pacific region of Vodafone AirTouch Plc, AirTouch's parent company. "It promises to be as revolutionary for personal information access and management as cellular was for voice communications." Unlike previous wireless data access services, Net Access doesn't require an expensive wireless modem. It works with new data-ready digital phones such as the sleek, lightweight and inexpensive Qualcomm 860 Thin Phone, which AirTouch is the first cellular carrier to offer. (Compatible handsets from other vendors will be available later this year.) The phone, connected to your laptop with a simple serial cable (available from AirTouch), is all you need-the service requires no other hardware or special software. Net Access provides a speedier and much more reliable connection than older analog-based wireless services. The service offers the fastest data throughput commercially available from any major U.S. cellular or PCS carrier and is more than adequate for text-based applications such as e-mail or most Web browsing. In addition, Net Access connects you directly to the Internet exceptionally fast-typically in fewer than 10 seconds, according to our tests, compared to as much as 30 seconds for dial-up access from your desktop. "With its promise of broad geographic coverage, Net Access will be an invaluable tool for many professionals and business people who can't afford to wait to access vital information," said Andrew Seybold, mobile communications analyst and publisher of Andrew Seybold's Outlook. "The service is affordable, easy to use, and will set customers free from the tether of telephone lines while they're on the go." The service is priced for now at the same airtime rates as voice communications. While connected to Net Access, customers can use the minutes they already have in their monthly bundle. About AirTouch AirTouch serves 9 million U.S. cellular and PCS customers on a proportionate basis. Its ventures operate in 25 states and 22 of the top 30 U.S. markets, including Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle. AirTouch is part of Vodafone AirTouch Plc, the world's largest wireless communications firm, based in the United Kingdom. It has mobile operations in 24 countries on five continents, with more than 31 million proportionate customers. For more information, visit the AirTouch web site at www.airtouch.com. Copyright 1998, 1999 AirTouch Communications, Inc. Website Disclaimer and Terms and Conditions ------------------------------ From: Rowena Macaraig Subject: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:35:13 PDT A friend e-maied this to me. I'd like to share it with you guys. U.S. House of Representatives 1207 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-4611 Phone: (202) 225-2931 Fax: (202) 225-2944 Please read the following carefully if you intend to stay online and continue using email: The last few months have revealed an alarming trend in the Government of the United States attempting to quietly push through legislation that will affect your use of the Internet. Under proposed legislation the U.S. Postal Service will be attempting to bilk email users out of "alternate postage fees". Bill 602P will permit the Federal Govt to charge a 5 cent surcharge on every email delivered, by billing Internet Service providers at source. The consumer would then be billed in turn by the ISP. One congressman, Tony Schnell AE has even suggested a "twenty to forty dollar per month surcharge on all Internet service" above and beyond the government's proposed email charges. Washington D.C. lawyer Richard Stepp is working without pay to prevent this legislation from becoming law. The U.S. Postal Service is claiming that lost revenue due to the proliferation of email is costing nearly $230,000,000 in revenue per year. You may have noticed their recent ad campaign "There is nothing like a letter". Since the average citizen received about 10 pieces of email per day in 1998, the cost to the typical individual would be an additional 50 cents per day, or over $180 dollars per year, above and beyond their regular Internet costs. Note that this would be money paid directly to the U.S. Postal Service for a service they do not even provide. The whole point of the Internet is democracy and non-interference. If the federal government is permitted to tamper with our liberties by adding a surcharge to email, who knows where it will end. You are already paying an exorbitant price for snail mail because of bureaucratic efficiency.It currently takes up to 6 days for a letter to be delivered from New York to Buffalo. If the U.S. Postal Service is allowed to tinker with email, it will mark the end of the "free" Internet in the United States. Note that most of the major newspapers have ignored the story, the only exception being the Washingtonian which called the idea of email surcharge "a useful concept who's time has come" (March 6th 1999 editorial.) Don't sit by and watch your freedoms erode away! Send this e-mail to EVERYONE on your list, and tell all your friends and relatives to write to their congressman and say "No!" to Bill 602P. It will only take a few moments of your time, and could very well be instrumental in killing a bill we don't want. Kate Turner Assistant to Richard Stepp, Berger, Stepp and Gorman Attorneys at Law 216 Concorde Street, Vienna, VA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, I have some real problems with this item. For one, I do not know of any legislative numbering scheme which would include a number like '602P'; if there is, maybe someone can advise me. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I seem to remember seeing this item before elsewhere on the net, where it was exposed as a fraud. Can anyone help out on this? Obviously if it is true it needs publicity, and if it is false, it likewise needs to be picked apart and exposed. Let's bring it to light either way. The trouble is, there is legal precedent for the US Postal Service to charge a fee for services they did not perform. It comes from that bit of law which gives the Postal Service the exclusive right -- really a legalized monopoly -- on the handling of First Class mail. They have no such monopoly on parcels, freight shipments, etc. But where a bit of text written on a peice of paper in a sealed envelope is concerned, they can, and sometimes have do insist on the right to be the exclusive carrier of same. It is quite rare that they do this, but readers may recall a few years ago when Postal Service sued Federal Express and demanded (1) an audit of all 'overnight letters' Fedex had delivered in the past few years and (2) demanded payment of (I believe) twenty- five cents for each such 'overnight letter' using the claim that the post office had been deprived of its money. The one exception was if the document was marked 'Urgent' or 'Emergency' or similar. In those cases the post office has to -- by its regulations -- let someone else handle the delivery. So they literally audited all of Fedex's delivery receipts, etc and those where the shipper had failed to mark the delivery 'urgent' were to be assessed the fee. I do not know if Fedex paid or not, or if they settled with USPS for some amount of money. I do know it caused a terrible stink at the time and as a matter of public relations USPS backed off on doing the same to other private delivery services. None the less, they have the legal right to claim a monopoly on the delivery of first class mail, which is any time written correspondence in a sealed envelope transfers between two people, or a company and a person, etc. They rightfully claim under the law that any mail receptacle -- even the one you bought and paid for attached to the front door of your house -- is their property and may not be used for any purpose except for mail delivered by the post office. If I come to visit and find you not at home and wish to leave a note saying I was there, I am not allowed, under the law, to place that note in your mailbox unless I affix a first class postage stamp to the note. The newspaper carrier cannot use that box. The Jehovah Witnesses cannot leave their literature there. No one can use that box by your front door except the postal carrier or anyone who wishes to attach a postage stamp to whatever they place inside the box. No common carrier is allowed under the law to deliver First Class mail other than the postal service or use its receptacles without payment of the fee, the exception being 'urgent' items for immediate delivery, and even then it has to be handed to someone and not just left in a receptacle. So there is precedent; it could happen if they wanted it to happen, although I am sure there would be not only a lot of litigation about it, but a terrible stench in the public nostrils as well. But Rowena, I smell something bad here already. Something is not coming out right. Anyone care to pursue it? By the way, at the post office I go to, I believe I saw a notice saying the postal service now offers internet access. Am I mistaken on that? PAT] ------------------------------ From: cnavarro@wcnet.org (Carl Navarro) Subject: Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 14:41:39 GMT Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:05:51 -0700, Linc Madison wrote: > In article , J.F. Mezei > wrote: >> Fred Goldstein wrote: >>> The NANP is Different from what the rest of the world users. It is a >>> strict DETERMINISTIC-LENGTH plan. EVERY telephone number is in a >>> 3-3-4 pattern. >> But there are exceptions when you dial internationally, the switches >> do pass on whatever number of digits you are dialing. >> Furthermore, if 3-3-4 is going to be exhausted, will North America >> have a choice? Sounds to me like they may have to add a digit. >> Perhaps begin today by adding a 0 to all telephone numbers in >> existence. Dialing that extra 0 won't hurt, right? And as switches >> get upgraded to handle 8 digits then the 0 starts to become >> important. Once all switches are upgraded to handle 8 digits, you can >> then start to issue phone numbers with a different non-0 last digit. > See . Really. Please read that > page before making any suggestions as to how we could go to 8-digit > numbers, because most of them have already been dealt with. > In short, the biggest problem with this technique is that it provides > remarkably little increase in capacity, because now, instead of wasting > numbers 10,000 at a time for each little CLEC in a rate center, we'd > waste those numbers 100,000 at a time. The only way you get a serious > increase in numbering capacity is by adding the digit to the FRONT of > the existing 7-digit number. > The other issue, of course, is the "once all [equipment is] upgraded" > (it isn't just telco switches), because that process will take many, > many years, in large measure due to amortization schedules. Doing it > overnight just doesn't make economic sense. End of discussion. I keep screaming this. Amortization is for big business. Ma and Pa don't give a crap about this because 90% of their equipment is not store and forward. My Panasonic or Comdial or Lucent is going to accept 11 or 12 or 15 or 16 digits and dutifully dial them out. The CO is going to accept the digits because Nortel makes switches that have software upgrades (oops, sorry about my GTD-5 CO :-). That just leaves Mr. Big Business who has a 15 year old PBX (read Rolm) that is looking for 10-digit ARS strings. A small part of the problem is vanity numbers. 888 got used up in a hurry from companies that had to duplicate their 800 numbers in the 888 exchanges. What a nightmare if we go to 8 digits. (FLOWERS 1-0?) Maybe the old days were better. Take the number the telco gives you or go without :-). > Bottom line: we're splitting and overlaying and adding new area codes > all over the place because it is CHEAPER than moving prematurely to > longer numbers. Portability is going to solve one problem. I can hardly wait for the problems it creates. Of course by then, EVERYBODY will have flat-rate 6.9 cents per minute calling to everywhere, including across the street. It might happen. Carl Navarro ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: World's First "Real Time PC to Fax" From bcmfax.net Date: 30 Jul 1999 13:40:41 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , S. Kaushik wrote: > "Real Time Fax technology over IP" is finally a reality! > With "True Real Time" faxing users will be able to send and receive > faxes in real time and will be able to monitor actual fax delivery > page-by-page directly from their desktops and receive delivery > notification in the same session ! Why is this commercial advertisement appearing in the TELECOM Digest? FWIW, free software has provided this functionality for *years*. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That wasn't a commercial advertisement, it was a press release. Don't you see me sitting here with a straight face as I say that? Seriously, that's how it arrived in my mail. I remember a time years ago when I actually used to try and seriously investigate the validity of press releases I received before printing them. Maybe I should find some time in my schedule to start doing so again. Oh, and FWIW, 'free software' is something we are not supposed to talk about on the internet of the future. Corporate-operated web sites will see to it that what software you need is made available at the appropriate price. PAT] ------------------------------ From: davidesan@my-deja.com Subject: Re: AT&T Bill Dispute Help Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 17:44:58 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , Drew C. Morone wrote: > system would call day and night trying to establish a connection to > continue the backup. It would fail, and try again. All without anyone > realizing it, until the bill came. It was around $3000.00! AT&T is > the long distance carrier. I'm sorry, I'm missing something here. How can AT&T charge for calls that were not completed? Why were the calls not completed? If you were in 212 (NYC) calling (718) NYC that would be a local call, but dialed 1+718+XXX+XXXX. Attempting to complete that call from say 201(NJ), should result in a completed call. In which case you owe AT&T the money, because you used their services. Am I missing something? David Esan Veramark Technologies desan@veramark.com ------------------------------ From: Jerry Harder Subject: Re: Phone Database Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:27:16 GMT Organization: @Home Network Try among others www.tariffs.com, www.ccmi.com, and www.valucom.com. Good luck, Jerry Harder remove spamnein from address to reply ------------------------------ From: paul1@nospam.com Subject: Call Waiting Signal Variations Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:12:36 GMT Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Are call waiting signals different between carriers or even within different areacodes/exchanges/prefixes of the same carrier? I am a Bellsouth customer in Atlanta trying to figure out why call waiting won't interrupt my modem connection. ------------------------------ From: Daniel Ganek Subject: Re: eBay Tries to Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:24:05 -0400 Organization: Radionics, Inc. Craig Williamson wrote: > In article , Gary Pratt > wrote: >> The only reason I can think of for a seller to set a reserve price too >> low would be to avoid the added fee for a higher value reserve >> price. If that's the seller's reason, then you get what you pay for. >> I sell on eBay and have never had a problem with this. I've never had >> a bid retraction nor have I sold any item for less than the price I >> was willing to sell at. Based on the seller's feedback, I've sold many >> more items on eBay than he has. >> I'm not denying that there are problems with fraudulent bidders on >> eBay, but that doesn't absolve the seller of the responsibility to >> protect themselves by setting reasonable reserve prices. > Well I skip many auctions because it has a reserve price. If you > won't sell it for a certain price then start the bidding at that > price. I often wait till the reserve has been met then decide I don't > want it that badly. If you want $50 for it then start the bidding at > $50. Don't hid behind the reserve. Reserve prices are useful when you don't know the value of the item. From the bids you receive you can determine what you can realistic expect and then make a decision on whether to sell it at that price. For example, I got this favorite widget which I think is worth $100; but I have a funny feeling that other people might not agree with me. So, I put it up for $25 with a $100 reserve. Bidding goes up to $50. Now, I have a better idea of what I can get for it AND I have a couple people who are interested in it. If I had put it up with no reserve for $100 no one would have bid and then where would I be??? Reserve prices are very common in any type of auction. dan ------------------------------ From: John Harris Reply-To: Subject: Re: USF and PICC Charges Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:01:53 -0500 In article , Linc Madison wrote: > No. The PICC and USF fees are ultimately obligations of the CUSTOMER, > *NOT* the IXC. There is no reason to charge these fees to the IXC, > other than as a collection agent in the same respect that they collect > the various taxes (excise tax, utility tax, etc.). They should only be > charged in a manner where it is very clear that $X was charged to IXC Y > for customer Z, and therefore Y gets to charge Z $X -- not $X + fudge > factor, not average value of $X over some range of customers, not some > arbitrary minimum. Ultimately, of course, the end user pays for all services in whatever format they are presented and whatever conduits they pass through. However, IXCs are free to set their toll rates, both fixed and variable in whatever manner they see fit. The PICC and USF fees are no different than the wages they pay their employees or maintenance costs etc. Just another cost of doing business that must be recovered if the IXC is to make a profit. If I were an IXC, I would probably price the same way they have. It is most rational to retain the fixed/variable nature of costs in pricing as much as possible. However, it must be understood that the LECs did not raise their charges. In fact they have decreased. When discussing the PICC specifically this was a rebalancing in which fixed loop costs are being recovered through the PICC instead of variable access charges. The LECs reduced access charges by the same amount of dollars that PICCs were forecast to generate. If the IXCs have passed on the fixed costs without reducing the variable per minute charges (as we know many of them have done), the IXCs are the ones who have in effect raised prices to end users. Look at AT&Ts profit for 2Q99, up 48%!! > The IXC shouldn't be paying the PICC, and I shouldn't be paying the > PICC through the IXC. *ANY* and *ALL* flat monthly fees for telephone > service should *ONLY* be collected directly through the LEC. No > exceptions, period. The only charges/fees/taxes that should be > permitted to be charged through the IXC should be strictly on a > percentage basis. It would be more rational for the end user to pay these fixed charges but the FCC lacked the political will to do this. They preferred to hide behind the IXCs and LECs. Like all politicians, they would like to get something for nothing. >> IMO, the FCC is a "partner in crime" with the long distance carriers. > Except that in this case it is also a "partner in crime" with the local > exchange carriers. The whole reason that the PICC exists is that the > LECs didn't want it to look like their prices were increasing. Nope, the IXCs are the ones putting money in their pockets in this case. See the discussion above. >> As for charging fixed amounts for the USF, it may just be that the >> marketing folks decided that too many people didn't understand this >> percentage add-on, especially when they already had to deal with the >> fixed PICC charge, so that some carriers like Telco and AT&T decided >> to impose it as a flat charge. > But that's ridiculous, especially in the case of dialaround access. > You just put the USF up in the "tax" section with the other taxes. The > more money you spend, the more USF charge you pay. Simple. I agree 100% ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #265 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jul 30 23:50:19 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA13978; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:50:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:50:19 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907310350.XAA13978@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #266 TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Jul 99 23:50:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 266 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: eBay Fraudulant Bidding Warning (Tony Pelliccio) Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered (Art Walker) Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered (Stephen Satchell) Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered (Richard Freeman) Censorware Isn't Parenting (John R. Levine) Text Message, Redux (Derek J. Balling) Modem Bumping, (was Re: Call Waiting Signal Variations) (Danny Burstein) Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) (L Madison) Re: USF and PICC Charges (Linc Madison) Re: Payphone Documents and Key Wanted (Bill Horne) This Week's Poll Question (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: eBay Fraudulant Bidding Warning Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:23:42 GMT In article , gifford@ nitrosyncretic.com says: > David Massey wrote: >> I'm always going to set a reserve price now that I read this! I have >> seen some people get scammed into selling very valuable things for a >> couple dollars because they did not set a reserve and they started the >> bid at a few bucks. The scam artist comes in with a hidden identity >> or a temporary email address and rips you off. > Uh ... exactly how does a seller get "scammed" into selling things too > cheaply? If anyone is jumping in with both feet, placing costly items > for auction without setting a reserve and obviously hasn't read the > pages and pages of tips and suggestions for sellers, then I have no > tears to shed for them. > That there are people out there watching like a hawk for such naivete > and jumping on underpriced items hardly makes them "scam artists." This is exactly why you set a reserve price on Ebay. Make it what you want and you'll get it. Anything else is gravy. I've recently sold two pieces of equipment at their reserve price and I'm happy about it. We also bought equipment at it's reserve and are quite happy with it. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com (Art Walker) Subject: Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered Date: 30 Jul 1999 22:13:21 GMT Organization: Recovering Nebraskans Clinic - Denver, CO Reply-To: Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:25:00 GMT, Dave O'Shea wrote: > Think of it as putting Barney Fife in charge of the nation's highway system. > The results are not going to be pretty. Just wait until said ISPs realize that a "black-list" system isn't going to work as they'd like. The next step will be a "white-list" system that only allows access to those sites that meet a strict code of conduct (a "hays code" of the Internet, if you will). The step after that will be when a company with enough resources to bully content providers (Wal-Mart perhaps) decides to get into the act. Art ------------------------------ Subject: Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered From: satch@concentric.net (Stephen Satchell) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:45:33 GMT Organization: SBC Internet Services The problem as I see it is that parents are not willing to do the job of parenting, wanting instead to leave it to "someone else" -- preferably at no cost to them, the parents. This is one reason I believe that the family organizations are so interested in censorship of certain material inappropriate for children: it relieves the parents of one more aspect of the parenting job. Then again, when have prohibitions of any kind ever worked in a democracy? We tried prohibiting consumption of alcohol, we tried prohibiting consumption of certain classes of drugs, we are working toward trying to prohibit possession (and do prohibit use) of firearms, and on, and on, and on. Where have those prohibitions gotten us? How do you think organized crime got its start in the United States? When? But this is comp.dcom.telecom, so I'll just close by saying that the design of the Internet itself works against any attempt to prohibit access to questionable material. A network designed to cope with a nuclear incident doesn't even blink when you try to put up barriers at other than the ultimate point of access: the child's computer. (And let's leave the discussion of computers in libraries and school classrooms for another time, shall we?) adamf@columbus.rr.com (Adam Frix) wrote in : > In article , Dave O'Shea > wrote: >> The only problem is that most, if not all, of these efforts, are >> complete failures. Here's a group that checked several of the >> best-funded and largest-selling systems, and found that they not only >> fail to block most of the "offensive" sites, but the DO block a number >> of educational, useful, and well-policed sites. >> http://www.censorware.org/press/press_07-28-99.html > Why do people call this "censorship"? When a parent stops his child > from seeing and reading things that the parent feels are not in the > best interests of the child, that is most assuredly NOT "censorship". > It's called parenting. > Too many people in this world seem to think that everyone should be > allowed to see and read whatever he wants -- children included. > Worse, too many of those people are nosy busybodies who want to insert > themselves between the parent and the child, as if they know better > than the parent and are more capable of making that particular > decision for the child. > Censorship, my foot. Parenting. ------------------------------ From: rfreeman@netaxs.com (Richard Freeman) Subject: Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered Date: 30 Jul 1999 20:42:13 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:13:09 -0400, Adam Frix wrote: > In article , Dave O'Shea > wrote: >> The only problem is that most, if not all, of these efforts, are >> complete failures. Here's a group that checked several of the >> best-funded and largest-selling systems, and found that they not only >> fail to block most of the "offensive" sites, but the DO block a number >> of educational, useful, and well-policed sites. Actually, it seems the article that you referenced deals more with filtering software than filtering ISPs. The software approach generally runs as a proxy on a local machine and filters content at your machine. This is obviously bypassable by a resourceful child. Likewise, the need for constant updates in software like this almost certainly renders this solution barely effective. The ISPs that do filtering, however, generally filter at the router level - so that packets from filtered sites don't even make it to your modem - rendering the filter unbypassable (without the conspiracy of an external proxy, which is more difficult for a child to arrange unless he has contacts outside his ISP with access to computers to act as servers). Since only one filter is in place for an entire ISP it is now feasible to give this filter intensive monitoring. Most of these ISPs will respond to requests to unfilter sites that got accidentally included within a short period of time, and will add sites to the filter even more rapidly as they are reported (in addition to automatic addition of new sites). They are often a superior, but frequently more expensive, alternative to filtering software. They also will probably run much faster, since routers are designed to filter content and the filtered material doesn't even clog up your phone connection (nothing more wasteful than downloading a 25k webpage which doesn't end up getting displayed because it fails a filter test). Admittedly, keeping up with new porn sites on the Net has to be a tough battle -- I'm sure they can't get everything. However, the fact that this material requires considerably more effort to obtain probably will be appealing to parents who might desire to use it. Similar strategies would be appealing to corporations who don't want to spend their money on bandwidth to see it filled with "business-unrelated" material. Many companies have already had to do this to stop proliferations of things like the star-wars trailer which who-knows-how-many people downloaded. In the end it isn't censorship - the person paying for the bandwidth has the right to decide what goes over it. Any adult can purchase their own T1 line to their house if they don't like their employers policies. Richard T. Freeman - finger for pgp key 3D CB AF BD FF E8 0B 10 4E 09 27 00 8D 27 E1 93 http://www.netaxs.com/~rfreeman - ftp.netaxs.com/people/rfreeman ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 1999 16:42:21 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Censorware Isn't Parenting Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Why do people call this "censorship"? When a parent stops his child > from seeing and reading things that the parent feels are not in the > best interests of the child, that is most assuredly NOT "censorship". > It's called parenting. If that's what censorware did, you might be able to call it parenting, although expecting a computer to be a babysitter is a pretty poor form of parenting in my book. But it doesn't -- all of the censorware I've ever looked at uses an unpublished list of keywords and URLs to try and block out stuff that's naughty, for some ill-defined version of naughty. It all misses a lot of stuff that anyone would agree was inappropriate for children, and the keywords gratuitously block unrelated pages, e.g., a filter for dirty words blocks mycology pages that talk about shitake mushrooms, or a filter on "breast" blocks both pages of chicken recipes and pages about breast cancer detection and treatment. But even worse, all the censorware I've seen also comes with a hidden political agenda. A lot of it silently blocks pages that are critical of censorware. See for example the widely blocked www.peacefire.org. Many also have right-wing political or religious agendas, which would be fine if they told their customers up front, but they don't. The sane model for a kid-friendly Internet is the children's room at your local public library, where the librarians start with empty shelves and choose books that they believe are appropriate for their users. One of my back burner projects is to start with a well-crafted list of URLs, like my friend Jean Polly's "Internet Kids and Family Yellow Pages" and make a web proxy or something that provides those URLs. There's no hidden agenda there -- you can read the book and see all of the URLs in her list. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:30:21 -0700 From: Derek J. Balling Subject: Text Message, Redux OK, first off, a big thanks for the answer to my PacBell PCS question. :) Got it up and working in no time after that ... thus ... I'm back. After having climbed up three levels of ignorance at GTE Wireless, getting referred to a local GTE Wireless store, and having the Wireless store's internal tech support tell them "We can't give out that info because it would enable them to get free air-time", I'm hopelessly lost when it comes to the topic of GTE Wireless Messaging. (This TRULY pains me, mostly because I used to work for GTE, and to think that ANYONE would think an IXO modem number should be considered "company confidential" sickens me). OK, so again the number I have for GTE is 800-483-2340, except that under any number of possible pin permutations I gave it (7d, 10d, 11d), all of them returned: page failed, id=GdS30000, from=dballing, to=gte_test, parts=1 : Record not found for ID: 000000000nnnxxxx Of course, I can go to the web page and deliver the page "just like that", so either I'm dialing into the wrong system to deliver the page, or they've got a wonky pin format. Any thoughts from those with experience out there? I'm thinking about grabbing the page at http://www.qpage.org/phone-numbers.html and updating it to also include all the "pin nuances" of the digital phone set, since that method is becoming so prevalent these days. If I get the ambition to do it, I'll send it to Pat for publication on the TD site. :) D ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) Subject: Modem Bumping, (was Re: Call Waiting Signal Variations) Date: 30 Jul 1999 18:20:54 -0400 In paul1@nospam.com writes: > Are call waiting signals different between carriers or even within > different areacodes/exchanges/prefixes of the same carrier? I am a > Bellsouth customer in Atlanta trying to figure out why call waiting > won't interrupt my modem connection. Yes, there are different call waiting signals, but read on: There are two considerations here. The first is what type of signal you're getting from the central office when the call comes in; the second is _how your modem reacts_ to it. Signalling: The earlier CO switches (we're going way back here in telco time, to the mid 1970s) such as the #1ESS, were very klunky. If a call came in to you while you were talking to someone else, you'd momentarily drop the connection to the caller, hear a very loud KERCHUNK/BUZZ/KERCHUNK, then you'd get back to the call. If you didn't switch to the new caller, then about 10 seconds later you'd hear another KERCHUNK/BUZZ/KERCHUNK. Oh, and the person you were speaking to would hear the kerchunks ... The same thing would happen, of course, if your first connection was via a modem. Oh, in addition to the loud noise and interference, many switches also added in a "current reversal" on the phone wires. So ... when you combine these features, you'd almost always wind up with the modem dropping the first call. Most of the more recent switches use a softer approach. Instead of a grating noise, you get a "gentle tone" (that's the term the RBOCs use.) The person on the other end doesn't hear anything (well, actually, they hear a 'dropout' i.e., if you were talking to them, you'd fade out for a half second). Which gets us to the second part -- modem responses. In the bad old days, any short loss of signal, or interference, could cause a modem to hang up. Newer modems (i.e. anything within the last 10 years or so) have error correcting protocols built in, so a short loss of signal will _not_ hang it up. Rather, the modems will just treat it as a short interference burst and, once it clears, will resend the packets. So.. in short: old modem with old central office switch: you're bumped off new modem with new central office switch: you stay on new modem/old CO | old modem/new CO... it'll vary All is not lost. While you can't do much about your CO switch, there are things you can do about the modem's sensitivity. For example, the factory default setting may be to allow a full second of 'loss of carrier' (which is what the "gentle tone" causes) before it hangs up; you can reset it to 1/10th of a second. Similarly, you can kill off error correction. (note that this is not as dangerous as it sounds ... most connections to the internet are done via "point-to- point-protocol", which has its own error correcting methods) So ... the final answer is: you can _probably_ tweak some settings on your modem to make it recognize call waiting and hang up. Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:58:07 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: NANPA Extension (was Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance) In article , Carl Navarro wrote: >> See . Really. > [ ... ] >> The other issue, of course, is the "once all [equipment is] upgraded" >>(it isn't just telco switches), because that process will take many, >> many years, in large measure due to amortization schedules. Doing it >> overnight just doesn't make economic sense. End of discussion. > I keep screaming this. Amortization is for big business. Ma and Pa > don't give a crap about this because 90% of their equipment is not > store and forward. My Panasonic or Comdial or Lucent is going to > accept 11 or 12 or 15 or 16 digits and dutifully dial them out. The > CO is going to accept the digits because Nortel makes switches that > have software upgrades (oops, sorry about my GTD-5 CO :-). That just > leaves Mr. Big Business who has a 15 year old PBX (read Rolm) that is > looking for 10-digit ARS strings. No, no, no, no. Amortization is for EVERY business. Basically, every business that makes enough money to support even one full-time person has amortization schedules on its equipment. And it isn't just someone with a 15-year-old PBX that will have problems with 8-digit local numbers, or especially a mix of 7- and 8-digit numbers. Just about every PBX sold in North America would at least require reprogramming to deal with it, and a whole lot of them, even sold a lot less than 15 years ago, will require replacement. The bottom line remains that doing it overnight just doesn't make economic sense, and that really is the *END* of the discussion. There is nothing more to say. We WILL NOT go to longer numbers in North America until we get MUCH closer to exhausting the 10-digit numbering space we are currently using, and there's NO POINT suggesting how we could do it. Yes, area code splits and overlays are a pain for everybody. However, it is a HUGE mistake to think that just adding a digit to phone numbers would be anything other than a far BIGGER pain for everybody, so stop your whining and get used to adding area codes. (On the other hand, what we CAN do to minimize the crush of new area codes is to push HARD on the FCC and state PUCs and ILECs to implement thousands-block number pooling *NOW* and look into full number pooling in the medium term (five or ten years), so that we don't run out of AREA CODES in 2007 or so.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:03:11 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: USF and PICC Charges In article , John Harris wrote: > Ultimately, of course, the end user pays for all services in whatever > format they are presented and whatever conduits they pass through. > However, IXCs are free to set their toll rates, both fixed and > variable in whatever manner they see fit. The PICC and USF fees are > no different than the wages they pay their employees or maintenance > costs etc. Just another cost of doing business that must be recovered > if the IXC is to make a profit. > If I were an IXC, I would probably price the same way they have. It > is most rational to retain the fixed/variable nature of costs in > pricing as much as possible. Exactly my point. There is ZERO fixed cost associated with the USF on a per subscriber basis, so why charge a fixed minimum for it? On the monthly bill I referred to in my earlier message, the actual amount that Telco paid in USF charges was around ONE CENT, but they billed me SIXTY-THREE cents. That is not rational. >> Except that in this case it is also a "partner in crime" with the local >> exchange carriers. The whole reason that the PICC exists is that the >> LECs didn't want it to look like their prices were increasing. > Nope, the IXCs are the ones putting money in their pockets in this case. > See the discussion above. That still doesn't change the fact that the LECs didn't want to have the charge show up on their bill. I stand by my statement. This whole fiction that the PICC represents the "interstate portion" of the fixed cost of providing the local loop is absurd and needs to be squashed like a bug. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:43:02 -0400 From: Bill Horne Organization: Place Clue Here Subject: Re: Payphone Documents and Key Wanted BMarcus826@aol.com wrote: > I have an AT&T payphone that I would like to convert for use in my > home. Looking for information, also need to locate a key to open the > telephone. Would appreciate any suggestions. Well, there's several things to think about: If you're interested in using this as a curio, without it actually demanding money, all you'll need to do is set it for loop start and dial tone first. Most "fortress" phones have this option, but I'll defer to others for the specific wiring. Lockbox keys vary from phone to phone, but the "service" keys for the upper half are fairly common. You can buy them from Lucent for a reasonable fee, or just chat up your friendly phone repairman. However, if you're trying to use this as an actual "pay" phone, things get complicated really fast: it'll have to be a "business" line, and might require ground start service (depending on the vintage of your phone). Also, unless you have a phone with "smart" cards in it, you'll be limited to paying "operator assisted" rates for any call that doesn't involve actual cash: not a great way to win friends and influence party guests, but a VERY good way to teach the youngsters the value of a Quarter. As it happens, I know a guy that curbed his children's calling in this way: he wound up getting cell phones for himself and his wife, with the kids limited to the pay phone! Of course, the usual "ring twice and hang up" games soon followed, but he told me it was worth it just for the way it taught the kids to organize their time and do their talking face-to-face. Not only did his phone bill go down (believe it or not), but he said the kids even started making an agenda before calling anyone! Good luck: HTH. Bill Horne http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/b/bhorne/index.html (remove ".nouce" from username to reply. Sorry.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:03:33 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: This Week's Poll Question This week, the poll question has to do with the amount of money you spend on Directory Assistance charges. What percentage of your entire telecom bill each month is for using 'information' to get the number you wish to call? See http://telecom-digest.org/vote.html to participate or read results. Javascript/cookies required to participate; cookies may be disposed of at any time. The cookie merely records the fact that your computer was used to vote one time in the current poll. Last Week's Results: You were asked who is your primary long distance carrier. There was no clear majority. The plurality went to 'other', meaning a variety of smaller, lesser-known carriers. AT&T came in second. Other ...... 29 percent AT&T ...... 26 percent LCI/Qwest .. 18 percent Sprint ..... 10 percent MCI ........ 8 percent Frontier ... 8 percent Results do not equal 100 percent due to rounding. Since the telecom-digest.org poll is not conducted in a scientific or precise way, no authoritative statement can be given from the results. Participate in voting or review the results as they accumulate by visiting http://telecom-digest.org/vote.html PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #266 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jul 31 01:48:06 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA17504; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 01:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 01:48:06 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907310548.BAA17504@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #267 TELECOM Digest Sat, 31 Jul 99 01:48:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 267 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Its An (Old!) FAKE: E-mail Legislation Bill 602P (Lauren Weinstein) Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" (Mark Brader) Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" (Jason Fetterolf) Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" (Herb Stein) Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" (George Yanos) Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" (Gary Ansok) Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" (Heywood Jaiblomi) Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" (Jon Carpenter) Yet Another Bogus Chain Letter, (was E-mail Legislation) (John R. Levine) AT&T to Raise Business Rates (Babu Mengelepouti) Tripp Indicted For Taping (Monty Solomon) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (nospam@elmhurst.msg.net) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (Jeremy M. Posner) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (Derek J. Balling) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (David B. Horvath, CCP) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 99 21:16 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: It's An (Old!) FAKE: E-mail Legislation Bill 602P Greetings. Before anyone gets started, let's nip this one in the bud. That message going on and on about "Bill 602P," the Postal Service, and e-mail, is *totally* bogus. It keeps reappearing every few months, and is sent around the net like a chainletter. (Rule of thumb: Whenever you receive "alarming" info via e-mail that has been forwarded around from person to person with loads of headers, and you haven't heard about it from any "normal" source, it's probably untrue.) There's some speculation that the purpose of the original rumor was to encourage people to lobby against a bill with a somewhat similar designation, but on an entirely different topic. Rather than spend space here detailing the many fallacies in that text, I'll instead refer readers to some URLs that deal with this and similar bogus rumors that fly around the net OVER and Over and over ... See: http://www.acns.nwu.edu/world/hoaxes-and-rumors.html http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/CIACHoaxes.html http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/CIACHoaxes.html#emailtax --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein Moderator, PRIVACY Forum --- http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Host, "Vortex Daily Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz" --- http://www.vortex.com/reality ------------------------------ From: msbrader@interlog.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" Date: 30 Jul 1999 20:34:14 -0400 Organization: - > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, I have some real problems > with this item. For one, I do not know of any legislative numbering > scheme which would include a number like '602P'; if there is, maybe > someone can advise me. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I seem to > remember seeing this item before elsewhere on the net, where it was > exposed as a fraud. Can anyone help out on this? ...] One word: . BEFORE POSTING, please! Synopsis: No such congressman, no such lawyer, no such law firm, no such address, no such legislation, no such bill number possible, no such editorial in the Washingtonian (they even put a page on their web site to say so); and all of these bogus US-specific references are in there because they were substituted for original Canada-specific ones that were equally bogus. Mark Brader | "Relax -- I know the procedures backwards." Toronto | "Yeah, well, that's a quick way to get killed." msbrader@interlog.com | -- Chris Boucher, STAR COPS My text in this article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 21:17:52 -0400 From: Jason Fetterolf Reply-To: jason@itw.com Subject: Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" Organization: Apollo Concepts Well, this scam-o-the month is really easy to de-bunk. Just attempt to *call* the great law firm at the bottom ... Yeah, yeah , yeah... > Don't sit by and watch your freedoms erode away! Send this e-mail to > EVERYONE on your list, and tell all your friends and relatives to > write to their congressman and say "No!" to Bill 602P. It will only > take a few moments of your time, and could very well be instrumental > in killing a bill we don't want. A handy lil' investigation via phone disc, the postal svc web site, and other directory services will reveal that there is: NO Richard Stepp, NO law firm in that area by the name Berger, Stepp, and Gorman, and.... 216 Concorde Street DOES NOT EXIST in Vienna, VA! > Kate Turner > Assistant to Richard Stepp, > Berger, Stepp and Gorman > Attorneys at Law > 216 Concorde Street, Vienna, VA Boy, some people ought to get a life rather than spin these fearful yarns!!! Adios, Jason ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 03:04:16 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) Pat- I believe the 602P number is a reference to a Canadian bill. And it doesn't fly there either. Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:19:07 CST From: George Yanos Subject: Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, I have some real problems > with this item. For one, I do not know of any legislative numbering > scheme which would include a number like '602P'; if there is, maybe > someone can advise me. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I seem to > remember seeing this item before elsewhere on the net, where it was > exposed as a fraud. Can anyone help out on this? Obviously if it is > true it needs publicity, and if it is false, it likewise needs to be > picked apart and exposed. Let's bring it to light either way. Some well meaning new e-mail user at UIC sends it around once every couple of months. I've seen it several times. I have absolutely no reason to think that it has any basis in fact, except ... Long ago there was a law allowing the Post Office *department* (that long ago) to charge a stamp's value to private courier messages that fit into the definition of "first class mail". I don't think they have actually tried to collect it for many, many, years. George Yanos 708-205-6788 GYanos@uic.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: USPS did get in a fight with Federal Express a few years ago and tried to hit on them for 25 cents each times the number of overnight letters delivered for a two or three year period which did not have the word 'urgent' written on the delivery receipt or other paperwork. You see, the federal government is so pushy and arrogant about so many things, it is not beyond the realm of possibility they would pull something like that in their ongoing effort to put the internet in the hands of its rightful owners, the large corporations in America. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gary Ansok Subject: Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" Date: 30 Jul 1999 15:21:12 -0700 Organization: TRW Inc. Reply-To: Gary.Ansok@trw.com It's a piece of "faxlore", the same scare story that's been around for years. Except now instead of the FCC levying a charge, it's the US Postal Service. Before this story was around to warn us about the US Congress considering a Bill 602P, practically the exact same story was going around that the Canadian parliament was considering Bill 602P. The story had Canada Post instead of the US Postal Service, of course, and still had Tony Schnell, Richard Stepp, and Kate Turner -- then with Canadian references and addresses (even the street address was 216 Bay Street). Neither the US Congress or the Canadian Parliament uses a bill numbering scheme that would number a bill "602P". The Washingtonian has specifically denied ever printing such an editorial, and both Canada Post and the US Postal Service deny any involvement. There's more information at http://www.snopes.com/spoons/faxlore/internet.htm and http://www.urbanlegends.com/ulz/emailtax.html Gary Ansok ------------------------------ From: heywood@gloucester.com (Heywood Jaiblomi) Subject: Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:38:55 GMT Organization: Redundancy and more of it Hi Pat! It has been exposed as a fraud in several versions, all of which use the same name for the law firm, and 602P for the bill number, neither of which I am told does exists I didn't find this firm in a search in Vienna, VA. > Kate Turner > Assistant to Richard Stepp, > Berger, Stepp and Gorman > Attorneys at Law > 216 Concorde Street, Vienna, VA Nulla meretrix est melior quam longaeva meretrix ------------------------------ From: Jon Carpenter Subject: Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:26:39 -0400 > From: Rowena Macaraig > Subject: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" > Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:35:13 PDT > A friend e-maied this to me. I'd like to share it with you guys. > U.S. House of Representatives > 1207 Longworth House Office Building > Washington, D.C. 20515-4611 > Phone: (202) 225-2931 Fax: (202) 225-2944 Pat, This is absolutely NOT true, and in fact the Postal Service itself says so. See http://www.usps.gov/news/press/99/99045new.htm. Jonathan Carpenter carpenter@bsr.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder what/who is in the 1207 Longworth location and at the US Capitol switchboard (202-225) phone numbers? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 1999 18:12:52 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Yet Another Bogus Chain Letter, (was E-mail Legislation) Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > A friend e-maied this to me. I'd like to share it with you guys. Here's a helpful tip: never, ever, pass along an e-mail chain letter. They're all bogus. Every one. 100%. I've never seen one that was real, the few that started real got a life of their own long after the issue was moot and have been circulating, zombie-like, year after year. This particular one about "alternate postage fees" is a fake from top to bottom as you easily could have discovered by calling any of the phone numbers in the message. > Kate Turner > Assistant to Richard Stepp, > Berger, Stepp and Gorman > Attorneys at Law > 216 Concorde Street, Vienna, VA Uh, huh. Visit http://www.cfc.dnd.ca/emailtax.html where you'll find the exact same warning about Canada Post, from the peripatetic Kate Turner at Berger, Stepp and Gorman in Toronto. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So maybe it is an international law firm with offices in both Canada and the USA ?? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 17:11:54 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: AT&T to Raise Business Rates In one of AT&T's all-too-common 3"x2" ads in the {Seattle Post- Intelligencer}, AT&T announced that they are raising most business 800 rates by 4.9%. Rates in Alaska will increase by 9.9%, and calling card surcharges will increase by 60%. This is all effective 8/2/1999. It's beyond comprehension to me why rates are increasing by such a substantial amount, when access charges have been cut. It will be interesting to see if other carriers follow AT&T's lead. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:17:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Tripp Indicted For Taping Linda Tripp faces up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, after she was indicted Friday on two counts of illegally taping phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky. http://www.lycos.com/news/flash/lindatripp.html ------------------------------ From: nospam@elmhurst.msg.net Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us Date: 30 Jul 1999 17:09:54 -0500 Organization: - In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > That seems to work pretty well. I tried it last night on test.html, a > page of mine where I conduct experiments and debug my work before > putting my work on line. But I propose a different scenario. Suppose I > do not even try to go to the page at all, but merely aim for the .ram > and .rpi wherever it happens to be located at the site? The web server software can be configured to protect any files on the server, including .ram or .rpi, restricting the serving of files based on any criteria a good programmer can imagine. I've done it on several sites to protect graphics from being 'inlined', where a remote site causes _their_ page to load _my_ graphics from _my_ server, costing me bandwidth everytime somebody visits them. It's not difficult. I bill by the hour :-) > I have seen lots of stuff like you suggest to keep people off of pages > where they were not (prematurely) wanted. How do you keep people out > of your directories and keep them from latching your .ram and .rpm > files and feeding them through their own players? I don't think you > can, but correct me if I am wrong. It is difficult for the average user of a web site hosting service to configure the server to keep people out of directories and prevent linking directly to binary data files, but it is not at all difficult for the person who configures and runs the server software to enforce rules of this nature; this functionality is built into the latest Apache. > For that matter, what prevents anyone from going to Universal.com and > right clicking on their pages, reviewing their source closely and > noting all the .ram addresses and doing the same thing? What prevents > you from right-clicking my pages or me right-clicking yours? There is > available some javascript which disallows right-clicking and there is > the HTML instruction 'NOSAVE' which helps a little, but even if I > have to play out his .ram during my three-day trial period, I am > going to be able to manually copy all those things seen in the browser > address bar am I not? No. There are good technical means by which to prevent this. What you can do is make your own local copies of the complete contents of the files, then you can do what you like with your local saved data, and never touch his web site. > So these folks say 'stay off our deep page'; my answer is I do not > need your deep page, I have a page of my own. If you want to host the complete binary data files on your server, you could get away with this until the copyright lawyers come after you, but there are good technical solutions to keep unauthorized people from accessing your server except in the way you choose. ------------------------------ From: jposner@panix.com (Jeremy M. Posner) Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:20:58 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > I have seen lots of stuff like you suggest to keep people off of pages > where they were not (prematurely) wanted. How do you keep people out > of your directories and keep them from latching your .ram and .rpm > files and feeding them through their own players? I don't think you > can, but correct me if I am wrong. The trick is not to use text files as your .ram and .rpm files, which can even save work in the long run if you have a lot of RealVideo. If all of your RealVideo is located on a single server, just create a CGI script that dynamically creates the .ram or .rpm file based on the query string. All you need to do is make sure that you feed the browser the content type audio/x-pn-realaudio as opposed to text/html. This method has three advantages, two of which are advantageous even if you don't want to take any precautions against people linking directly to your .ram files. First, you no longer need to create a new .ram file every time you add a new video file to your site, you merely need to create the proper query string. Second, if you have to move your RealVideo to another server, you only need to change that information in the CGI script, rather than each of the .ram files. (Of course, this is a minimal concern, as it's pretty easy to GREP through the .ram files and fix that.) Finally, it would be very easy to write the CGI script so that it only generates the .ram file if the referring URL is from your own site. In other cases, it could send a plain old html page saying whatever you want people to see. So, if you were to dissect the source for the page at http://www.filmscouts.com/scripts/proj.cfm?Type=Caught&Format=RV&Rate=I&File=mys-men/mac-kin you would find that instead of a reference to an .rpm file where the embedded video appears, there is a reference to a PERL script instead. Of course, this doesn't stop people from reading your .ram files and creating their own which point to your RealVideo files. To do that, you'd probably have to do some server-level tinkering. | Jeremy M. Posner | "The internet? Is that thing still around?" | | jposner@panix.com | -Homer Simpson | | (212) 426-7967 | http://www.panix.com/~jposner/ | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, how hard is it to write a .ram file to start with? They are only one line long, and function like a kind of re-director to where the true file is located. Be sure and quote the entire line, and be sure to include an embedded carriage return or ASCII (13) on the end of the line. The best way to describe the purpose of a .ram file is this: Normally you say to your browser 'go to address X, fetch the contents and return them to me'. When playing an audio/video file, you say to the browser, 'go to .ram at address X and ask him where to find the audio/video file.' The reasons for this are technical and a little boring, but the thing is you want the file to show up streaming rather than to show up and try to just load itself on your hard drive. That is over-simplifying it, but you get my point. So maybe the solution is that when someone shows up at your site and wants to see a movie, not only do you *not* link them to the other guy's deep page, you link them to your own .ram file which points at the other guy's .rpm file. If there are a choice of things to be viewed, then I use my own CGI to create the .ram files on the fly. At least using my own CGI I don't have to worry about his CGI kicking me out for coming from the wrong direction. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 16:47:12 -0700 From: Derek J. Balling Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us >> if ($ENV{'HTTP_REFERER'} !~ /^http://[^/]*universal.com/?) >> { >> print "Location: http://www.universal.com/\r\n\r\n"; >> } >> else >> { >> provide_data(); >> } >> A null string (no referer, e.g., bookmark or braindead browser) triggers >> the first case. A bad referer triggers the first case. Only a referer which >> starts "http://" contains any number of characters (other than "/") >> followed by universal.com, with an optional "/" following it will be >> accepted. (Anything past the optional "/" is ignored by that regular >> expression.) > That seems to work pretty well. I tried it last night on test.html, a > page of mine where I conduct experiments and debug my work before > putting my work on line. But I propose a different scenario. Suppose I > do not even try to go to the page at all, but merely aim for the .ram > and .rpi wherever it happens to be located at the site? > In other words, he says stay off of his deep pages without permission. > Come to the top page, worship me and my advertisers, turn over your > identity and pay the fee demanded; then *I* will pass you to the deep > page where the plugin is established so that you can watch the movie I > have. > But I respond that I do not need his deep page with his plugin (and > probably more advertising) any longer. I have my own player on a sort > of 'utility page' stored on my own computer, since on a mailing list I > belong to, the moderator gave everyone some free, and simple code for > building a player of their own yesterday. Now I just need to browse > his directories, note the path to his .ram files and go from there. > I have seen lots of stuff like you suggest to keep people off of pages > where they were not (prematurely) wanted. How do you keep people out > of your directories and keep them from latching your .ram and .rpm > files and feeding them through their own players? I don't think you > can, but correct me if I am wrong. Sure, you use the same code above. You configure your server to, on ANY request for that file (be it JPG, GIF, RAM, RM, whatever), to check the referer against "known good" referers (your own domain for example). If it doesn't match (or is undefined, which by definition doesn't match), then you simply reject the request (401 Access Forbidden). > Now I set up my web page with the free plugin code the moderator gave > out yesterday, with a script that 'fills in the blanks' for EMBED SRC > based on the link chosen or the radio button pushed or whatever, and > I tell everyone you can secretly watch the nude teens as they frolic > right here, without getting hassled about your credit card and stuff. But you can't duplicate the referer. (Well, you CAN but it is exceedingly more difficult, and you certainly couldn't do it on a public web page). > Shoot me down. Tell me why it won't work. See above. :) In theory: Yes, you can build a custom download agent in Perl that tells the web server whatever you want the referer to be. Not a problem. I have done it on a number of occasions during the lifetime of the Dilbert web site. :) But this only works in the singular. You had access to download the data, and you still have access to download the data. That's a client-side solution. In practice: It doesn't allow someone coming to your site to get that data, because they will still have a referer of "Your site" and not "Universal" (or wherever). The only way a browser will hit your site but have a referer of "Universal" is is (a) they hacked their browser code, or (b) there are some VERY evil DNS games being played wherein a local DNS server to both you and them is pretending YOUR server is actually a "Universal" web server. D ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:58:06 EDT From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:54:38 -0700, our esteemed moderator wrote in response to Derek J. Balling who responded about 'illegal links': >> A null string (no referer, e.g., bookmark or braindead browser) triggers >> the first case. A bad referer triggers the first case. Only a referer which >> starts "http://" contains any number of characters (other than "/") >> followed by universal.com, with an optional "/" following it will be >> accepted. (Anything past the optional "/" is ignored by that regular >> expression.) > That seems to work pretty well. I tried it last night on test.html, a > page of mine where I conduct experiments and debug my work before > putting my work on line. But I propose a different scenario. Suppose I > do not even try to go to the page at all, but merely aim for the .ram > and .rpi wherever it happens to be located at the site? and talks about method of finding URL's of deep pages defeating referer checks (deleted) ending up with: > So these folks say 'stay off our deep page'; my answer is I do not > need your deep page, I have a page of my own. > Shoot me down. Tell me why it won't work. Coded properly, you'll never see the direct references to the content (.jpg, .ram, .etc). A typical (simple) image source looks like: --------------------------------- This one displays a simple grey bar (or a row of dashes if you have "load-images" turned off). I can code it a litte differently and execute a CGI-BIN instead of serving up the image: Within the script tracker.gif (which can be Perl, Korn Shell, a C program binary executable, whatever), it can check the passed URL, the referer, time of day, IP, or many other parameters! The trick is that ".gif" is not holy! It would be better if it returns a data item of that type (in case the browser makes any assumptions). The code in tracker.gif (in Korn Shell) looks something like: echo "Content-type: image/gif" echo "" # cat cat ../gif/sgrey.gif Unless I configure my web server incorrectly, you'll never see the real tracker.gif file. And I can name the file I send to you (sgrey.gif) anything I want. I could have it in .gif format and name it .jpg (which will confuse your browser). I could encrypt it on disk and unencrypt (a simple XOR or ROT13) it for transmission. I could put it in a directory that is not directly accessible to the web browser/server (a CGI script runs as the owner of the file). I'm sorry Pat, but there are ways of hiding anything. ObDisclaimer: this works well under UNIX, NT may be a bit different. David B. Horvath, CCP dhorvath@cobs.com Consultant, Author, International Lecturer, Adjunct Professor (also: dhorvath@arcnow.com, dhorvath@dca.net, davidh@decus.ca, and many other places) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There may be ways to hide everything, but if I come (legitimatly) into your deep page and see you are playing a movie, then I am going to right-click you and see what you are about. As I then proceed to source your page, I notice .gif after .gif but nary a file name ending in a 'traditional' suffix used for audio/video stuff and logic would dictate that you had things hidden away. I am going to start pulling those alleged .gif files back to my site while I have an opportunity to do so, in order to examine them a little better. Everything can be reverse-engineered given the patience to do so. It becomes a matter of whether the inquiring party's patience and interest expires before he finds the answer, in which case your secret remains hidden. There is a limit to the return for one's investment of anything, be it money, time, or intellectual pursuit of someone else's property. As long as there are umpty-million sites with .ram files sitting around openly, unhidden from anyone who takes the trouble to source the page or do a raw dump of the HTML, why go to the extra trouble of trying to get yours; unless your movies are really hot, and extra-exciting, but I doubt they are. :) In any event, I would be too tired and brain-dead afterward to enjoy them anyway ... LOL ... and as was pointed out, you can usually save them on your own computer anyway and save the hassle of trying to pick the lock on the other guy's door. Even if they set the file so that 'recording' it to your disk as it plays out through the media player is not an option, as the evil German nazi doctor in that comedy series on television would say, 'Vee have our ways to get vhat vee want.' I've noticed that if you keep your 'Windows Temporary Internet Files' and the temporary file space which is part of your user profile in Windows clean -- as you should anyway, since you never know who is going to come knocking at (or down, take your pick) your door these days -- that finding those files stashed away in there in the process of being them being buffered, etc is pretty easy. Using something like Windows Explorer, copy them safely into some other directory, renaming them to something that makes sense to you. You cannot physically move the file while an instantiation of the browser is going on; windows won't let you do it because it has the file 'busy', trying to display it. The catch is, you have to get in there right away, while the player is busy with its buffering then make a copy and take it away to safety. As a worst case scenario, when windows occassionally does not cooperate, you can always go into DOS, go back there and get the file yourself and hustle away with it. Still, an awful lot of work for a movie when so many sites take no pains to hide theirs at all and present better quality, more pleasant web sites to begin with. But it should tell you something sad about the overall condition of our internet these days when we even have to plot our strategies like this. I am sure it is not what Tim Berners-Lee had in mind in the earliest days of his project. Have a nice weekend! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #267 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jul 31 18:34:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA14536; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:34:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:34:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907312234.SAA14536@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #268 TELECOM Digest Sat, 31 Jul 99 18:34:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 268 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (Peter Corlett) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (Steven J Sobol) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (David B. Horvath, CCP) Re: AT&T Bill Dispute Help (Leonard Erickson) Re: AT&T Bill Dispute Help (Denis McMahon) Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered (Dale Neiburg) Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered (Leonard Erickson) Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered (Alan Boritz) Re: ADSL Pricing and Service in Europe (Ronald J. Bartle) Re: This Week's Poll Question - Directory Assistance (Colin Sutton) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: abuse@verrine.demon.co.uk (Peter Corlett) Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us Date: 31 Jul 1999 19:56:56 GMT Organization: B13 Cabal David B. Horvath, CCP wrote: > > Within the script tracker.gif (which can be Perl, Korn Shell, a C program > binary executable, whatever), it can check the passed URL, the referer, > time of day, IP, or many other parameters! You don't even need to go to the effort of changing the URLs of all your images to that CGI script, since Apache can be configured to run any part of your site through a CGI filter - indeed, the directory "/cgi-bin" is not special -- it's merely configured by default to run any programs within it as a CGI script. Essentially, you configure Apache to make "/images", or files ending in .gif, go through a CGI script. The CGI script then automagically does all the dirty work in checking referers and then decides whether or not to serve the image. Naturally you insert an Expires header unless you want people to load your pictures repeatedly on each page making your site slower and increasing the bandwidth load, but otherwise, that's about it. With a bit of lateral thinking, you can find out the specifics of how to do this from the Pony Book ("Apache" from O'Reilly.) I've actually done similar to this, since I essentially ended up being sysadmin for a large UK news site. Our client discovered somebody linking into the site within a frameset and then passing it off as their own, or at least had some official sanction. It also broke the design as their frameset wasn't large enough. 30 minutes later, I'd written a Perl script, configured Apache, and visitors coming from that pirate's server found they were now getting a rude message instead of where they thought they were going. The link in question disappeared AFAIK, no lawyers required. The script is also gone, to make the site a bit faster, but it's ready and waiting for the next freeloader to try to grab a bit of the action and the glory. ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us Date: 31 Jul 1999 16:59:08 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:54:38 -0700, ptownson@telecom-digest.org allegedly said: > I have seen lots of stuff like you suggest to keep people off of pages > where they were not (prematurely) wanted. How do you keep people out > of your directories and keep them from latching your .ram and .rpm > files and feeding them through their own players? I don't think you > can, but correct me if I am wrong. I haven't tried this (just thought it up), but it probably will work. ** Change file permissions on the .ram file so that the webserver can't read it. Generally the user account used to run the webserver is nobody (on a UNIX/Linux/*BSD box), or IUSR_machinename (on a Windows box, where "machinename" is the NetBIOS name of the server). ** In fact, make sure to disable global read/write access, and enable read access for only one user. ** Create a CGI script that runs as that user. The CGI outputs the correct MIME type for the file, then does a binary read and just passes the output through the server to the user's browser. It takes a little work -- and requires CGI access -- but should do what you're talking about. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org It really bothers me that there is an IRC channel called #jarjarsex. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 08:38:19 EDT From: dhorvath@cobs.com (David B. Horvath, CCP) Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 18:58:06 EDT, I wrote: > Within the script tracker.gif (which can be Perl, Korn Shell, a C > program binary executable, whatever), it can check the passed URL, the > referer, time of day, IP, or many other parameters! > I'm sorry Pat, but there are ways of hiding anything. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There may be ways to hide everything, > but if I come (legitimatly) into your deep page and see you are > playing a movie, then I am going to right-click you and see what you > are about. As I then proceed to source your page, I notice .gif after > .gif but nary a file name ending in a 'traditional' suffix used for > audio/video stuff and logic would dictate that you had things hidden > away. I am going to start pulling those alleged .gif files back to my > site while I have an opportunity to do so, in order to examine them > a little better. Everything can be reverse-engineered given the > patience to do so. It becomes a matter of whether the inquiring party's > patience and interest expires before he finds the answer, in which > case your secret remains hidden. Actually, you won't be able to see the *actual* .gif files. You won't be able to pull the CGI-BIN scripts (because they execute on the host -- web server). What you would get when you attempted to pull those files is the actual image -- but not its location. By coding the script properly, I can check the URL of the page that references it. If the page is not what I expect (http://www.YYYY.com/my_page.html for example), I can send you a default image that says "no deep links". No matter which *apparent* .gif file you attempt to download, you actually execute the script ... > There is a limit to the return for > one's investment of anything, be it money, time, or intellectual > pursuit of someone else's property. As long as there are umpty-million > sites with .ram files sitting around openly, unhidden from anyone who > takes the trouble to source the page or do a raw dump of the HTML, > why go to the extra trouble of trying to get yours; unless your movies > are really hot, and extra-exciting, but I doubt they are. :) In any > event, I would be too tired and brain-dead afterward to enjoy them > anyway ... LOL ... and as was pointed out, you can usually save them > on your own computer anyway and save the hassle of trying to pick the > lock on the other guy's door. My approach only prevents "deep linking" where your page shows my content using *my* bandwidth. You detailed some of the ways of saving the content once they appear on *your* screen. But saving the content and showing it elsewhere is "copying". By *copying* my content to your web page (which is a little different from the copy in your cache or explictly saved to your hard drive (right-click|save image) ), you may be violating copyright laws. That is something completly different. That can't be *prevented*, only punished when caught. David B. Horvath, CCP dhorvath@cobs.com Consultant, Author, International Lecturer, Adjunct Professor (also: dhorvath@arcnow.com, dhorvath@dca.net, davidh@decus.ca, and many other places) ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: AT&T Bill Dispute Help Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 03:09:26 PST Organization: Shadownet Drew C. Morone writes: > We had a computer that would dial a local number to back up data > files. The call was made to a different area code, but it was still > local (NYC area). The computer was taken out of service at that > location, and moved to another location which was out of state, but > still only six miles away. The people at the new location plugged > everything in, not realizing that the backup process was still > attempting to connect to the same number, now long distance. The > system would call day and night trying to establish a connection to > continue the backup. It would fail, and try again. All without anyone > realizing it, until the bill came. It was around $3000.00! AT&T is > the long distance carrier. And this is a perfect example of *why* "1+ equals toll" is a good idea. If this had happened here (Portland, Or), with a move to Vancouver, WA (about three miles away from where I sit), the result would have been a failure to connect. In Portland, you'd have been dialing something like 503-Nxx-yyyy. Which is the correct way to make a local call now that we have an overlay. But from Vancouver, that would get an intercept, because you have to dial long distance as 1+NPA-NXX-YYYY. So the call wouldn't complete. > This was back in February. We contacted AT&T to see if we could explain > the situation, and maybe get some sort of an adjustment. And as you discovered, since it wasn't *their* fault *you* are stuck with the bill. BTW, one thing puzzles me. You say that the backup would fail and the system would redial to attempt to continue. *Why* did it fail? If it *hadn't* I daresay that you'd have had a much smaller bill. That makes *two* failures on your end. And there's a third. There should have been a routine that sounded an alarm after a set number of failures in a row had occured. Heck, my Fidonet mailer will do *that*. Three connects followed by a failure to transfer data trigger an "Undialable" status line on the screen *and* lock out that number until I *manually* review the setup. And yes, the number of "bad" connects is configurable. > I tried to get someone there to listen to the situation, but they > weren't interested. Alas, they are in the right. They are *not* responsible for your mistakes. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk (Denis McMahon) Subject: Re: AT&T Bill Dispute Help Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 20:40:10 GMT Organization: E-Menu Ltd Reply-To: denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:12:24 GMT, Drew C. Morone wrote: > We had a computer that would dial a local number to back up data > files. The call was made to a different area code, but it was still > local (NYC area). The computer was taken out of service at that > location, and moved to another location which was out of state, but > still only six miles away. The people at the new location plugged > everything in, not realizing that the backup process was still > attempting to connect to the same number, now long distance. The > system would call day and night trying to establish a connection to > continue the backup. It would fail, and try again. All without anyone > realizing it, until the bill came. It was around $3000.00! AT&T is > the long distance carrier. Hmm, The anwering system was unplugged and moved to a new location. What was answering the phone on the old number? Didn't the system give warnings about the failure to complete the backup? Who was being paid to look after the system? Why didn't they re-configure it? Did the people who arrange for the other system to move provide appropriate notification? Did someone fail to act on it? Rgds Denis McMahon denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk | All mail from some domains is Mob+44 802 468949 Tel/Fax+44 1705 698221 | deleted due to high UCE levels AXE-10 Engineer / Switch Tech? Join the AXE-10 Technical Mailing List. mailto:denis@pickaxe.demon.co.uk for invite. No Agencies / Advertising. ------------------------------ From: Dale Neiburg Subject: Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 14:53:28 -0400 In TELECOM Digest #264, Adam Frix wrote: >> The only problem is that most, if not all, of these efforts, are >> complete failures. Here's a group that checked several of the >> best-funded and largest-selling systems, and found that they not only >> fail to block most of the "offensive" sites, but the DO block a number >> of educational, useful, and well-policed sites. >> http://www.censorware.org/press/press_07-28-99.html > Why do people call this "censorship"? When a parent stops his child > from seeing and reading things that the parent feels are not in the > best interests of the child, that is most assuredly NOT "censorship". > It's called parenting. > Too many people in this world seem to think that everyone should be > allowed to see and read whatever he wants -- children included. > Worse, too many of those people are nosy busybodies who want to insert > themselves between the parent and the child, as if they know better > than the parent and are more capable of making that particular > decision for the child. > Censorship, my foot. Parenting. Fair enough, but the issue here isn't having the parents make decisions. It's third parties who are taking advantage of parents' computer illiteracy to sell *their* filters ... which probably don't work as the parents would like. Same problem with in-home filtering software. As far as I know (and I'd be delighted to be told I'm wrong), there's no filtering software that allows me to set my own filters, or even to find out what filters the writer is using. I'm forced to trust the writer, and from the reviews I've seen the writers usually allow their own prejudices to rule (an avid Republican will block Democratic sites, and so on). Dale Neiburg ** NPR Satellite Operations ** 202-414-2640 I'm the guy...who put the "fun" in "dysfunctional"! ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 03:33:48 PST Organization: Shadownet adamf@columbus.rr.com (Adam Frix) writes: > In article , Dave O'Shea > wrote: >> The only problem is that most, if not all, of these efforts, are >> complete failures. Here's a group that checked several of the >> best-funded and largest-selling systems, and found that they not only >> fail to block most of the "offensive" sites, but the DO block a number >> of educational, useful, and well-policed sites. >> http://www.censorware.org/press/press_07-28-99.html > Why do people call this "censorship"? When a parent stops his child > from seeing and reading things that the parent feels are not in the > best interests of the child, that is most assuredly NOT "censorship". > It's called parenting. > Too many people in this world seem to think that everyone should be > allowed to see and read whatever he wants -- children included. > Worse, too many of those people are nosy busybodies who want to insert > themselves between the parent and the child, as if they know better > than the parent and are more capable of making that particular > decision for the child. > Censorship, my foot. Parenting. The problem is that in the guise of "helping the parents" these services *are* censoring things. Many censor sites based on *political* or even *personal* agendas not mentioned to their customers. Parents could use some help. But it's going to *require* that they *learn* something about the net, especially about the inherent weaknesses of both "keyword filtering" and of depending on the opinions of some nameless employee as to what is or isn't "appropriate" for their children to see. A good start would be supplying a keyword filtering service with the parent having control of the keyword list. And a *thorough* explanation of why some keywords are bad choices. I'd recommend have the explanations pop up automatically when attempting to enter a poorly chosen keyword. Preferably with a list of the sort of "ok" sites that would get blocked. For example, attempting to enter "sex" would point out that it amounts to a total block of sites dealing with biology, medicine or law. Another useful feature would be some sort of site rating service that could manage to maintain it's objectivity. And finally, I think the *simplest* method of dealing with "kids on the home system" would be to have the system maintain a list of the sites the kids attempted to access, and allow the *parent* to approve them individually. That way the *parent* would have to review the site at least superficially. I doubt that'd sell. It's more work than most parents seem willing to put in. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 12:41:18 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , Art.Walker@ onesourcetech.com (Art Walker) wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:25:00 GMT, Dave O'Shea > wrote: >> Think of it as putting Barney Fife in charge of the nation's highway system. >> The results are not going to be pretty. > Just wait until said ISPs realize that a "black-list" system isn't going > to work as they'd like. > The next step will be a "white-list" system that only allows access to > those sites that meet a strict code of conduct (a "hays code" of the > Internet, if you will). > The step after that will be when a company with enough resources to > bully content providers (Wal-Mart perhaps) decides to get into the act. You mean like Disney in New York's Times Square? (no kidding) In article , adamf@columbus.rr.com (Adam Frix) wrote: > In article , Dave O'Shea > wrote: >> The only problem is that most, if not all, of these efforts, are >> complete failures. Here's a group that checked several of the >> best-funded and largest-selling systems, and found that they not only >> fail to block most of the "offensive" sites, but the DO block a number >> of educational, useful, and well-policed sites. >> http://www.censorware.org/press/press_07-28-99.html > Why do people call this "censorship"? Because it is? > When a parent stops his child > from seeing and reading things that the parent feels are not in the > best interests of the child, that is most assuredly NOT "censorship". > It's called parenting. No, it's a very poor excuse for AVOIDING parenting. > Too many people in this world seem to think that everyone should be > allowed to see and read whatever he wants -- children included. We're naturally curious. It's a fact that no one can control all environments to which a child may be exposed. Just because you may have an obligation to protect a child's interest doesn't mean that we share it with you. > Worse, too many of those people are nosy busybodies who want to insert > themselves between the parent and the child, as if they know better > than the parent and are more capable of making that particular > decision for the child. No, it's not that simple. Too often the measures taken in the interest of "parenting" infringe upon the rights of others. > Censorship, my foot. Parenting. If "parenting" were done properly, there would be no need for censoring content for children. ------------------------------ From: Ronald J. Bartle Subject: ADSL Pricing and Service in Europe Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 20:41:09 +0200 Organization: [Posted via] Interactive Networx I sometimes wonder - considering we are living supposedly in democracies with a market or social-market ecconomies, why European Netizens are prepared to put up with mediocre roll-out achievements and over-the-top pricing for the new broadband offerings. Intertnet via the widely used cable-tv systems in Germany here for instance is something for the future with not even concrete plans made known. The latest news is that dt.telekom wants to divest itself of the tv-cable network and is having trouble finding a competent buyer. Thie hardly sounds like the big boom is about to dawn on us all with affordable fast cable-based net access somehow. On the other side of the cable|adsl divide, Dt. Telekom - still largely the local-call/net-access local carrier had anounced dometically available partial coverage for the so-called T-DSL for July'99 which on 1.7.99 - was just put back a bit with a murmer.. and has now been taking concrete orders from domestic consumers for a few days on line - (but after 72hrs or more one is wating for the confirmation from them ...) and one will be _releaved_ to be getting 100hrs of online time via the proscribed t.-online isp for a package price (IDSN+T-DSL-100hrs/T-online) of appx 250DM/Month (appx. 165,-US$/Month.) Compare this note on ADSL services in California: "... SBC also said it plans to cut service prices in order to compete more directly with cable modem access, which has taken an early lead in the consumer market. Prices will start at $39 for the DSL service alone, or $49 with Internet service through the Baby Bell's ISP ..." So, my question is, "Why do we put up with it!?" Where are the enterpreneurs, and if they are out there but the regulators are in the way. The regulator here in Germany for instance is paid to a large extent out of the Federal Govts. 72% share in the (ex?) state-monopoly Dt Telekom AG - is there not a need for a major lobby of consumers to make thier voice felt and get real action on this matter before Europe falls so far behind the US/UK in on-line matters - just cos of the exhorbitant cost of connects.. that the disparity of expectations and results could lead to social/geo-political problems in the future!? Wake up folks! Commander Ron Bartle snuffy@snafu.de Royal Air Force war veteran. Operating small B & Breakfast in Berlin - single dad - hobby journalist - http://www.snafu.de/~snuffy ------------------------------ Reply-To: Colin Sutton From: Colin Sutton Subject: Re: This Week's Poll Question - Directory Assistance Organization: Siemens Building Technologies Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 21:32:12 +1000 TELECOM Digest Editor wrote in message: > This week, the poll question has to do with the amount of money you > spend on Directory Assistance charges. What percentage of your entire > telecom bill each month is for using 'information' to get the number > you wish to call? Directory Assistance is free in Australia. With the advent of the mobile 'phone, the usage of the service increased so much that the cost started to hurt, but we still don't have to pay. Instead the phone company plays an advertisement after you make your request and before you are told the number. Regards, Colin Sutton [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So your answer to this week's poll question would be 'less than 5 percent'. Other readers who have not answered this week's poll question and reviewed the results to date are invited to do so at http://telecom-digest.org/vote.html Javascript and a cookie are required, to insure that each computer is used to vote only one time, but the cookie may be disgarded as you wish afterward. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #268 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jul 31 19:04:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA15830; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:04:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199907312304.TAA15830@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #269 TELECOM Digest Sat, 31 Jul 99 19:04:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 269 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Lisa Hancock) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Eli Mantel) Re: Unmasking Anonymous Posters (Adam H. Kerman) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Leonard Erickson) Re: AT&T to Raise Business Rates (John B. Hines) Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered (Jack Decker) Re: eBay Tries to Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco (Walter Dnes) Re: eBay Fradulent High Roller Bidders (Alan Boritz) Re: eBay Fraudulant Bidding Warning (Andy Etherington) Court Aids Schools on Net (Monty Solomon) Real Competition in the Local Loop? (marten@landstrom.pp.se) Re: Call Waiting Signal Variations (Joseph Singer) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Dave Close) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: 31 Jul 1999 20:57:26 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS > Linda Tripp faces up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, after > she was indicted Friday on two counts of illegally taping phone > conversations with Monica Lewinsky. I think this is an issue of (1) personal privacy and (2) illegal search and seizure. I think people should have a reasonable expectation that their communications will be kept confidential per the law. A police officer (or anyone else) can't simply sneak into your house and go through your personal belongings because they feel like it. A private citizen as no right whatsoever to do so. A police officer must have a court issued search warrant first. IMHO, Tripp was a private citizen, attempting to conduct a law enforcement effort. She was acting like a vigilante, and violated the law doing so. IMHO, Tripp was not trying to "cover herself" as she claims. Rather, she was attempting to (1) get dirt for her book agent, and (2) nail the president. I don't see these as acceptable motivations to knowingly violate the law. (The newspaper reported that she was charged because she had been advised what she was doing was illegal and continued to do so.) ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 07:34:14 GMT Monty Solomon (monty@roscom.com) wrote: > Linda Tripp faces up to five years in prison and > a $10,000 fine, after she was indicted Friday on > two counts of illegally taping phone conversations > with Monica Lewinsky. I don't get the idea behind laws that prohibit a person from taping a phone conversation to which they are a party without first getting the consent of everybody on the call. I understand the concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a phone conversation, but once you tell somebody something, then it's only as private as they choose to make it. If I start getting threatening calls, depending on the state I'm in, I'm not allowed to covertly tape those calls without first getting a court order? So that when I testify against this person in court, the best corroborating evidence won't be available? What valid public purpose do such laws serve? ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Unmasking Anonymous Posters Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 1982 Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 18:48:49 GMT Monty Solomon wrote: > A new legal trend has privacy advocates up in arms: Attorneys are > using subpoenas to unmask the identities of anonymous posters to > online discussion forums. And the people whose identities are at stake > rarely have the chance to fight back. > http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/20983.html I read the story. (Why are these brief wired stories broken up into three parts?) It mentioned that MSN and AOL "voluntarily" warn their customers when they have received a subpeona to reveal their records. But Yahoo doesn't. Does Yahoo owe their users anything? Is there an expectation of privacy? Does a contractual obligation exist? Are users relying on specific representations or promises? I glanced at Yahoo's privacy policy: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/privacy/ Yahoo accounts were free. This doesn't seem like a consumer issue to me. Here's the relevant language: With whom does Yahoo! share my information? As a general rule, Yahoo! will not disclose any of your personally identifiable information except when we have your permission or under special circumstances, such as when we believe in good faith that the law requires it or under the circumstances described below. Please see Privacy Policy ... Other: Yahoo! may also disclose account information in special cases when we have reason to believe that disclosing this information is necessary to identify, contact or bring legal action against someone who may be violating Yahoo!'s Terms of Service or may be causing injury to or interference with (either intentionally or unintentionally) Yahoo!'s rights or property, other Yahoo! users, or anyone else that could be harmed by such activities. Yahoo! may disclose or access account information when we believe in good faith that the law requires it and for administrative and other purposes that we deem necessary to maintain, service, and improve our products and services. That language is written broadly enough to guarantee that a Yahoo user has no right to privacy at all. However, the article also discussed that among the personal information Yahoo discloses is credit card account numbers. That IS a violation of consumer privacy. It may be a violation of rights given to consumers under federal law. ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:41:04 PST Organization: Shadownet Ed Ellers writes: > Daniel Ganek (ganek@radionics.com) wrote: >> Why can't the FCC mandate that 10 digit dialing ALWAYS works? > Why *should* the FCC mandate that local calls (that do not cross a > state line) must be dialable in a certain way? How does this have a > real impact on interstate commerce -- and if it does not, what > business does the Federal government have telling the states what to > do in this regard? Because it'll save business travellers from having to reconfigure their dialing directory for every city they visit. And it'll make it possible to configure PCs with support numbers to dial that will work *everywhere* without them having to be toll free numbers. And, contrary to what another poster said, anybody who works with equipment that automatically dials numbers benefits from a "1 means toll" setup. It means that if you mstakenly configure a non-local prefix as local you won't get hit by large charges due to dozens (or even *hundreds*) of calls to a number you thought was local. With the combination of both, folks who don't care about the extra charges can just always dial 1. The ones who do can leave it off on calls they expect to be *local*, and have them bounce when they *aren't* local. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: jhines@enteract.com (John B. Hines) Subject: Re: AT&T to Raise Business Rates Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:31:20 GMT Organization: US Citizen, disabled with MS, speaking solely for myself. Babu Mengelepouti wrote: > It's beyond comprehension to me why rates are increasing by such a > substantial amount, when access charges have been cut. It will be > interesting to see if other carriers follow AT&T's lead. Is an increase in the tariff, or in the actual rate that you pay on their plan? Lately, a lot of the base tariffs rates, those which all those "save 50% off" ads are based on, but fewer people actually pay these days, since they are all on savings plans, including AT&T. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:22:25 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:13:09 -0400, adamf@columbus.rr.com (Adam Frix) wrote: > In article , Dave O'Shea > wrote: >> The only problem is that most, if not all, of these efforts, are >> complete failures. Here's a group that checked several of the >> best-funded and largest-selling systems, and found that they not only >> fail to block most of the "offensive" sites, but the DO block a number >> of educational, useful, and well-policed sites. >> http://www.censorware.org/press/press_07-28-99.html > Why do people call this "censorship"? When a parent stops his child > from seeing and reading things that the parent feels are not in the > best interests of the child, that is most assuredly NOT "censorship". > It's called parenting. > Too many people in this world seem to think that everyone should be > allowed to see and read whatever he wants -- children included. > Worse, too many of those people are nosy busybodies who want to insert > themselves between the parent and the child, as if they know better > than the parent and are more capable of making that particular > decision for the child. > Censorship, my foot. Parenting. It is parenting if the parent actually takes the time to see what the child is accessing on the Internet, and offers parental input. It is not parenting if the parent relies on a piece of software to determine what the child may or may not view, that was written by some commercial organization that may have quite unique ideas about what is appropriate viewing material for others. "Parenting" implies some level of parental involvement. These programs exist so that parents don't have to get involved. Parents who use this type of software are no better than parents who park their kids in front of the TV as a surrogate babysitter, then complain that the government should dumb down all TV to be appropriate for viewing by a five year old. They want any solution other than one that involves confronting their own children about what they're looking at. I am at a loss to figure out how they consider that "parenting." The problem with this kind of "parenting" is that you don't really train the child to be discerning. So what happens when the child goes to a friend's home and watches TV or uses a computer? What if they are using a computer at a school, library, or other location where filtering software isn't in use? For that matter, what if the child figures out how to disable the filtering when you aren't around? Many kids know more about computers than their parents think they do. It seems to me that if you can't trust you child not to be visiting porn sites (or whatever you find objectionable), maybe you should be sitting there with him every minute he is on the 'net, instead of being parked in front of the TV in another room watching "Baywatch". THAT would be "parenting." By the way, I am NOT one of those who necessarily sees "censorship" as a dirty word. There are some types of so-called "censorship" that are really simply attempts to uphold some community or moral standards, and I don't always see that as a bad thing (I know some people think anyone should be allowed to say anything at any time to anyone, and I simply do not agree with that). But I still think that "filtering" software is a poor substitute for real parenting, and when you use it it's like sending a telegram to your kids saying that you don't trust them, but you also don't care enough to watch over them yourself, and you're willing to let a piece of software act as a surrogate. Jack ------------------------------ From: waltdnes@interlog.com (Walter Dnes) Subject: Re: eBay Tries to Hush-Up Fraudulent Bidding Fiasco Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:03:41 GMT Organization: Interlog Internet Services > The scam, called "bid shielding" revolves around the ability > for someone to place a very high bid on an item and withdraw it > just moments before the auction closes. > The fraudster first makes a minimal bid, often only a fraction > of what the item is worth and then, using a different identity, > makes a bid for far more than the item is actually worth. They > now effectively "own" the item -- since it is unlikely that > anyone will outbid the higher offer. [...deletia...] > In what would appear to be an admission by eBay that they are > all but powerless to solve the problem, Hamilton quotes an email > from the online auctioneer that states: > "PLEASE, do not give out the details of this, as it will only > cause more users to try it, why add to the workload and > potentially cause problems for other sellers." Am I missing something glaringly obvious? Here's my analysis of the problem ... and the obvious solution. Problem: a) assume item is worth $100 fair market value; b) very early on fraudster puts in $50 bid; c) immediatetly thereafter, fraudster puts in $200 bid; d) ***EBAY WILL NOW NOT ACCEPT A BID BELOW $201***; e) at the last minute, fraudster withdraws $200 bid and the $50 bid becomes the high bid, i.e. the selling price; The problem could be solved by EBAY publicising the fact that the high bid might be withdrawn, and allowing lower bids to be placed. I.e., beef up their hardware, and be willing to accept $95, etc, bids at step d), in addition to the $200 curent high bid. Walter Dnes procmail spamfilter http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/spamdunk/spamdunk.htm ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: eBay Fradulent High Roller Bidders Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:37:35 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , James Gifford wrote: > Michael Maxfield wrote: >> Seller posts an item for a min $5 bid, and item for which $50 might be >> the highest ever expected on the free market. >> Buyer A comes along and bids $5 for the item. >> Buyer A obtains a second account as buyer Z and bids $75. >> Buyer B comes along, willing to go up to $20 on such and item, sees >> the $75 bid and exclaims "I ain't that crazy. No Way!" >> Buyer C comes along and while willing to pay upwards of $30, also goes >> running away upon seeing the outrageous bid. >> Buyer Z returns before the end of the auction and retracts the $75 >> bid, and as Buyer A is able to get the item for the opening bid of $5. >> Is that fair? > No, but it's also not the way eBay works. > Buyer A's bid sets the visible bid at $5.00. > Buyer Z's bid sets the visible bid at $5.50 (with a max of $75). > Buyer B's bid sets the visible bid at $20.00 (with a max of $75). > Buyer C's bid sets the visible bid at $30.00 (with a max of $75). > Buyer Z retracts his bid. > High bidder is left at Buyer C's bid of $30. ... But that's NOT the way eBay works, either. If Buyer Z bids a maximum $75, $5.50 will be the last (visible) bid. If buyer B then bids a maximum $75, the current price will jump to $75 *immediately* and he'll be outbid by Buyer Z (since he didn't exceed the other bid). If Buyer C also bids $75 he'll also be outbid by Buyer Z, but tied with Buyer B. If Buyer Z retracts his bid, Buyers B and C will still be tied, but the one who bid first would be the bidder, but at $75, not $30. The system is automatic, so maximum bids are escalated as soon as competing bids are recorded. You described a *seller's* scam, not a buyer's scam, and it's as old as auctions themselves. ------------------------------ From: Andy Etherington Subject: Re: eBay Fraudulant Bidding Warning Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 23:02:30 -0500 Organization: Digital Highway (using Airnews.net!) Reply-To: aetherin@dhc.net There's still some confusion (at least on my part) here. Based on my experience with EBAY, I'm not sure how this "scam" works (I tried to explain it to my wife this evening, and just couldn't convince myself that it was true). Ebay uses a "proxy" bidding system. Using the same type of example I've seen in this thread, let's look at how this works: Seller S has item I (market value $75) for sale. Opening bid is set to $5.00, with a bid increment of $1.00, and a reserve of $35. The argument, as I understand it, is that bidder A comes in, bids $35 for the item. Then, bidder A fraudulently submits a second bid, as bidder Z, for $125. This then scares off other bidders, who skip the item. At the end of bidding, bidder A withdraws the $125 bid, and wins a $75 item for only $35. What actually happens, based on my experience, would be that bidder A submits a bid for $35. Then, bidder A, as bidder Z, fraudulently submits a second bid at $125. So far, so good. But because of the "proxy" bidding, all anyone else sees is that there are two bids, one by bidder A, and one by bidder B, with the current auction price at $36. To enter the auction, bidder B only needs to bid $37. There is NO WAY for bidder B to know that the top price that Z is willing to pay is $125. After B submits the bid, the auction price is now $38, with Bidder Z as the winning bidder. If bidder Z then withdraws that bid, bidder B is the winner (at $37), NOT BIDDER A. Call me thick, but I just don't see how this "scam" works at all. In fact, all I see is a way to keep bidding the price up, as people "explore" what the bid that Z has "fraudulently" placed is. Again, all this is based on my experience, which may not be truly representative of how this actually works, but it doesn't work as well as it sounds. At least, not such that I can explain it to my wife (and I had enough trouble explaining proxy bidding to her!). Andy Etherington aetherin@dhc.net ------------------------------ Subject: Court Aids Schools on Net Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 10:11:35 -0400 From: Monty Solomon A federal appeals court upheld a $2 billion annual federal program Friday to subsidize Internet connections for schools and libraries. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals backed the Federal Communications Commission's decisions to allow the subsidies to be used to pay directly for Internet access as well as needed internal wiring at schools and libraries. Major telephone carriers like GTE Corp. (GTE) had argued the money could be spent only on telecommunications services. 'The language of the statute is ambiguous' .... http://cnnfn.com/1999/07/30/technology/wires/appeals_wg/ ------------------------------ Subject: Real Competition in the Local Loop? From: marten@landstrom.pp.se Organization: Stockholm Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:58:57 GMT Hello there, I'd like to know how many Americans that do have the real choice between two or more LECs; as far as I know the old LECs are still the only available choice for residential customers. Maybe someone could clarify this for me. The LEC, as I understand it, owns the access network from the Central office to the customer. Correct? Is there any ongoing initiative about achieving local loop unbundling so that not only the Internet access but also the adsl service could be provided by other companies than the LEC if so desired by the customer? Regards, Stockholm, Sweden ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 06:54:48 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Call Waiting Signal Variations paul1@nospam.com on Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:12:36 GMT wrote: > Are call waiting signals different between carriers or even within > different areacodes/exchanges/prefixes of the same carrier? I am a > Bellsouth customer in Atlanta trying to figure out why call waiting > won't interrupt my modem connection. Two things are involved here: One, if you have call waiting on one of the newer switches such as the Lucent 5E or Nortel DMS-100 you won't get the "beep-clunk" that you experience on the older AT&T/Lucent 1A offices. Another is that modern modems are far more resistant to interruptions than the older 2400 bps modems we used in times past. Very often now when you receive the call waiting signal all you'll experience is a temporary loss of data, but your connection won't be broken and you won't receive the "NO CARRIER" as a result. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [msg] +1 206 493 0706 [FAX] Seattle, Washington USA ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:46:24 GMT Jim Sielaff writes: > Does anyone know of a searchable database which indicates a 'local' > or 'toll' call from a particular NPA-NXX? It occurs to me that you could, or a software vendor could, provide a package which learns which dialing sequence works for any particular number. Your system could then try dialing it all possible ways in some rational sequence and keep track of what works for a particular NPA-NXX. You probably wouldn't need to do much re-dialing after the first day or two. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #269 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Aug 1 16:08:30 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA20268; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:08:30 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908012008.QAA20268@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #270 TELECOM Digest Sun, 1 Aug 99 16:08:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 270 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Michael David Jones) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Adam Frix) Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? (L. Winson) Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? (Joseph Singer) Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? (Donald E. Kimberlin) Re: This Week's Poll Question - Directory Assistance (Geoff Dyer) Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us (Robert A. Rosenberg) Re: eBay Fraudulent High Roller Bidders (Michael Maxfield) Re: Key Systems and Single-Line Stuff (David Willingham) Put Another Way, Court Rules For Higher Taxes (Danny Burstein) USOC Reference Wanted (Scott) Postal Express Statute (was E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P") (Ed Ellers) Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" (John R. Levine) Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" (Dale Neiburg) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: 1 Aug 1999 00:28:23 -0400 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA Eli Mantel writes: > Monty Solomon (monty@roscom.com) wrote: >> Linda Tripp faces up to five years in prison and >> a $10,000 fine, after she was indicted Friday on >> two counts of illegally taping phone conversations >> with Monica Lewinsky. > I don't get the idea behind laws that prohibit a person from taping a > phone conversation to which they are a party without first getting the > consent of everybody on the call. > I understand the concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a > phone conversation, but once you tell somebody something, then it's > only as private as they choose to make it. I think the idea is most likely to prevent the police from getting informants to generate very strong evidence at will. > If I start getting threatening calls, depending on the state I'm in, > I'm not allowed to covertly tape those calls without first getting a > court order? So that when I testify against this person in court, the > best corroborating evidence won't be available? You don't have to get a court order (at least in NY), just notify them that you're taping the calls. Which might be a pretty effective deterrent, actually. Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu - then there's basic honesty. I know it's not politicians' strong point :-), but when did you last believe ANYTHING George Bush said? I'd rather have Richard Nixon back - at least it wasn't Un-American to call him a crook. - Bill Stewart (wcs@cbnewsh..cb.att.com) on alt.society.civil-liberty ------------------------------ From: adamf@columbus.rr.com (Adam Frix) Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:35:25 -0400 Organization: Road Runner Columbus In article , hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: >> Linda Tripp faces up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, after >> she was indicted Friday on two counts of illegally taping phone >> conversations with Monica Lewinsky. > I think this is an issue of (1) personal privacy and (2) illegal > search and seizure. I think people should have a reasonable > expectation that their communications will be kept confidential > per the law. Interestingly enough, I live in a state where as long as *one* party knows the conversation is being taped, that's fine. No laws are being broken. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? Date: 31 Jul 1999 23:08:41 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > I'd like to know how many Americans that do have the real choice > between two or more LECs; as far as I know the old LECs are still the > only available choice for residential customers. It depends on the area served and on the customer. Many customers will never get the opportunity of competitive service since they're too small a user to interest a competing company. Many competitors are seeking only high volume business accounts (such as a company with a 1,000 line centrex). A second major issue is that many of the competitors aren't really separate companies with their own physical plant. Rather, they are simply buying bulk services from the main phone company and reselling them (as do many long distance carriers.) > Maybe someone could clarify this for me. The LEC, as I understand it, > owns the access network from the Central office to the customer. > Correct? Yes, the LEC will continue to have a REGULATED monopoly on the local loop plant. IMHO this is wrong, I think new companies should be required to build their own plant and be responsible for maintenance. In this way they'll be true competitors and eliminate finger pointing in case of problems. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 03:21:55 -0700 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? marten@landstrom.pp.se on Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:58:57 GMT wrote: > I'd like to know how many Americans that do have the real choice > between two or more LECs; as far as I know the old LECs are still the > only available choice for residential customers. > Is there any ongoing initiative about achieving local loop unbundling > so that not only the Internet access but also the adsl service could > be provided by other companies than the LEC if so desired by the > customer? As an example here in Washington state USWest the major LEC in the area is the only company that will provide residential dial tone. There are several other companies that provide dial tone to *business* but not to residential. IMO part of the reason for this is that business is the "cream" (where all the money is) and residential is not the major place where money is to be made. As part of the deal in the breakup of the Bell System in 1984 the split off Bell companies were prohibited from operating long distance anywhere except in their own LATA (local access and transport area i.e. local area of interest.) The LECs (independent Bell companies) want to be able to offer long distance, but a condition set by regulators is that they have competition for local service before they will be allowed to market long distance service. As for DSL services at the present time the LECs are the only ones offering DSL service on top of their POTS (plain old telephone service) lines. There are competing DSL providers such as Covad and Lightrealm, but to use their service you are required to have additional lines provided to your location as the LEC won't allow the competitive DSL providers use of the copper pair. I believe though I'm not certain that Covad is seeking remedy to this disparity between what they can offer and what the local LEC provides as it's a definite advantage that the LEC can provide DSL service without having to run a separate line. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [msg] +1 206 493 0706 [FAX] Seattle, Washington USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 13:40:15 -0400 From: Donald E. Kimberlin Subject: Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? In query wrote: > I'd like to know how many Americans that do have the real choice > between two or more LECs; as far as I know the old LECs are still the > only available choice for residential customers. > Maybe someone could clarify this for me. The LEC, as I understand it, > owns the access network from the Central office to the customer. > Correct? > Is there any ongoing initiative about achieving local loop unbundling > so that not only the Internet access but also the adsl service could > be provided by other companies than the LEC if so desired by the > customer? The US regulators hope, as always, that the open market will create competition. Meantime, they also have been at the matter in a variety of ways for a couple of decades to attempt to get the established telcos to unbundle rental of physical circuits and even elements of the dial tone, to permit others to purchase and resell it in various ways. So far, the only real alternative local transmission plant -- on which businesses can purchase alternative dial tone -- is available from the non-telco Competitive Local Access Carriers (CLEC's in today's jargon). These are primarily fiber optic companies in business centers, although some now forming are blanketing an area with 2 gHz radio formatted in 1.5 megabit T carrier style, creating a sort of "T-1 radio cell," as it were, but not providing a means for you to move from cell to cell, nor blanketing the area with cells (as yet). While the possibility exists -- and has been in operation in the UK and other nations for a decade or more -- the cable TV companies have yet to make many steps in the direction of selling dial tone or DSL services. They are now, in some places, providing cable modem service on an almost regular basis, but only in selected areas of their cable plant. In other words, the march of technology so far as local telecommuni- cations transport is concerned in the US runs far, far behind the potential already proved elsewhere. Rest assured the established power interests will milk the most they can out of the "old way" until finally forced by overwhelming odds to let change occur unhindered. Meantime, every small move is heralded as though it is some great technological breakthrough, when in fact, the implementation is rather far behind the technology curve. IMHO, even considering various social responsibilities accruing to the established entities, they really seem quite deliberate in efforts to stall progress or any competition. One has to be right up on the day-to-day news to see how many ways they instantly react to any perceived intrusion on their turf. Strangely, when competitors really do move in, the established entities really don't know how to compete. I can cite our local cableco, which has a CLEC fiber operation. They will put in an OC-12 between a couple of buildings downtown in a matter of hours, while the established telco's people describe it as a massive "engineering project" that takes weeks -- and loses business every time. ------------------------------ From: gldyer-nospam@geocities.com (Geoff Dyer) Subject: Re: This Week's Poll Question - Directory Assistance Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 11:52:38 GMT On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 21:32:12 +1000, Colin Sutton wrote: > Directory Assistance is free in Australia. > With the advent of the mobile 'phone, the usage of the service > increased so much that the cost started to hurt, but we still don't > have to pay. Instead the phone company plays an advertisement after > you make your request and before you are told the number. One other point worth making -- Australian directory assistance is not localised. The database is national, and even when it wasn't, out-of-area Australian numbers were obtained simply by dialling 0175 instead of 013 (both numbers being free). These are in the process of being replaced by a single national DA number (1223). However, there are *also* enhanced services which then connect you to the number. These typically add a premium (of one or two times the local call rate) to the cost of the actual call being made, though IIRC one of the mobile networks doesn't charge a premium. The telcos obviously advertise the convenience of the enhanced service (with some justification; eight digit numbers *are* harder to remember than six or seven digits). Geoff (to e-mail me, remove any instances of "-nospam" from my address) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To participate in this week's poll question, 'How much of your monthly telephone budget is spent on directory assistance charges' go to http://telecom-digest.org/vote.html to cast your vote or read the accumulated poll results to date. Java script and cookie acceptance is needed to vote, but you are free to disgard the cookie afterward as you wish. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 00:21:25 -0400 From: Robert A. Rosenberg" Subject: Re: Universal Says: Do Not Link to Us At 01:48 -0400 on 07/31/99, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote about TELECOM Digest V19 #267: >> I have seen lots of stuff like you suggest to keep people off of pages >> where they were not (prematurely) wanted. How do you keep people out >> of your directories and keep them from latching your .ram and .rpm >> files and feeding them through their own players? I don't think you >> can, but correct me if I am wrong. If you directory is flagged as not-world-readable it can not be displayed by a Web Browser (which has no need to read/display it in any case). Protecting the files IN the directory is a separate issue since they DO need to be world-readable. There is normally three levels of security -- OWNER (ie: The Web Master), GROUP (ie: Other people who are allowed to access the file/directory), and World (anyone who is not the Owner or in the designated Group List). At each level, there are access authorities - READ, WRITE, and EXECUTE. The owner can assign any combination that they want although some are nonsense. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: eBay Fraudulent High Roller Bidders Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:21:48 PDT From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael Maxfield) Carl Navarro wrote: > If the scenario you've described happens a lot, I just haven't seen > it. I was describing how it COULD happen, not how it happened ... unfortunately I didn't completely think it out. Using my scenario, one would need two high bidder aliases to bid it up and then to retract. James Gifford wrote: > Buyer A's bid sets the visible bid at $5.00. > Buyer Z's bid sets the visible bid at $5.50 (with a max of $75). > Buyer B's bid sets the visible bid at $20.00 (with a max of $75). > Buyer C's bid sets the visible bid at $30.00 (with a max of $75). > Buyer Z retracts his bid. > High bidder is left at Buyer C's bid of $30. You're right. Shame on me for my quick thought. Now I haven't tried it but here is how it really *supposedly* works. Bidder "A" puts in an obscenely high bid minus $10 (or so) Bidder "Z" (alias of "A") puts in THE obscenely high bid. Just prior to the close of the auction bidder "Z" retracts. The high bid goes back down to where it was before it was affected by bidder "Z", which means Bidder "A", which while the proxy is set for the obscenely high bid minus $10, the high bid is back at the opening bid, or the reserve value, or a few bucks higher than the bidder "A" had outbid initially. I have found one such auction at eBay which fits this scenario. To view it go to the search page at eBay and enter the auction number "133514338" The auction closed at 7-25-99 14:37 The winning high bidder is: yabe6 (2) (not a registered user) There are two retracted bids: anaba420 (0) (not a registered user) 07/24/99 13:29 blimpy5 (0) (not a registered user) 07/25/99 14:35 Yabe6's positive feedback value of "2" is 6 positives and 4 negatives. Perhaps just coincidence ... In Auction #133736143, both yabe6 and anaba420 retracted bids ... correction, Yabe6's bid was CANCELLED one minute after anaba420's was RETRACTED. Both of those auctions were in July, and dealing with radio controlled toys. In June, Yabe6 bid on four thundercats items. There are no retractions in any of the auctions he participated in, nor did he win any in Jun. In auction #119365485, anaba420 WON an auction for a FAKE ID KIT in which the seller was ... guess who ... yabe6. In that auction, gamestix (0) (not a registered user) Administrative Cancellation Whatever the heck that means ... I'm guessing it was Yabe6/Anaba420 getting the hang of retraction fraud. BTW, I've seen better descriptions on snake oil ... dunno what in that description warrants a $50 final bid ... but since I once scammed a student journalist with a similar fake id desc, I guess it could fool some. In auction #130647865 for a paintball stalker mask, anaba420 retracted a bid an hour prior to the end of the auction, but no idea who he was partnered with. In auction #133675863, an item which did not sell since the reserve was not met, there are two retractions, auction close: 7/25/99 18:38 anaba420 7/22/99 19:24 "sorry wrong auction" blimpy5 7/22/99 19:26 Looks like to cover some tail there is a Blimpy Bid which was made after the above cancel: blimpy5 7/22/99 19:26 $302 In auction #130307659, anaba420 appears in a bid where another bidder (0) had retracted bid with the explanation "the bid is false I made a mistake" but it doesn't appear that that user is associated with these games. Maybe I'm hanging out in the wrong auctions, but I've never seen this many retractions ... I don't even recall seeing more than one in all the auctions I've participated in. ------------------------------ From: we202c3f@aol.com (David Willingham) Date: 01 Aug 1999 14:31:50 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Key Systems and Single-Line Stuff > No, Bill, it's not easy at all. If the phone wasn't manufactured with > an extra switch-hook contact closure, it can't be done. Not all 500 > or 2500 series simple sets had them. Good luck trying to find them on > newer products. Alan, ALL of the hand-wired 500's and 2500's made by WE had the "extra" leads. Even the MM sets that were wired FOR A/A1 robbed the yellow and brown switch leads; the only compromise is that only the ring side of the line is switched, and the tip side is always wired directly to F on the network rather than going through the switchhook. To rewire a 500DM or 2500DM, all you have to do is to move the green (tip) line wire and the black ringer wire from L1 to F, removing the white switch lead from F. Then you have the spare switch contacts green and white, which can then be used for A/A1 WE202C3F@aol.com (David Willingham) ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) Subject: Put Another Way, Court Rules For Higher Taxes Date: 31 Jul 1999 21:14:26 -0400 In Monty Solomon writes: > A federal appeals court upheld a $2 billion annual federal program > Friday to subsidize Internet connections for schools and > libraries. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals backed the Federal > Communications Commission's decisions to allow the subsidies to be > used to pay directly for Internet access as well as needed internal > wiring at schools and libraries. Major telephone carriers like GTE > Corp. (GTE) had argued the money could be spent only on > telecommunications services. Am I one of the very few people who is troubled by this whole concept of Yet Another Tax (hidden by another name)? While there is arguable legitimacy (and let me emphasize it's arguable ...) for subsidizing "universal connectivity", I still haven't had anyone tell me with a straight face *why* the federal government (i.e. my taxes) are needed to assist local schools to wire up to the internet. School functions, for the most part (let's not talk about the "special education" deal, please), are funded by _local_ taxes. Extending out this telecommunications example would lead to additional taxes on my gasoline (hey, school buses need fuel), on my heating oil (they have to be kept warm), on my electric bill (obviously). Oh, and why not taxes on any book I purchase so as to help them add volumes to their school library? Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Scott Subject: USOC Reference Wanted Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 05:36:23 GMT If anyone out there has any USOC codes and their meanings, sharing them would be greatly appreciated. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Postal Express Statute (was E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P") Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 12:22:46 -0400 PAT, the TELECOM Digest Editor, wrote in reply: > USPS did get in a fight with Federal Express a few years ago and tried to > hit on them for 25 cents each times the number of overnight letters > delivered for a two or three year period which did not have the word > 'urgent' written on the delivery receipt or other paperwork. Was this before or after they tried to prosecute FedEx customers for evading postage by sending bundles of letters between branch offices by FedEx? Equifax got this threat after they allowed the Postal Service to audit their mail usage in order to suggest better ways to use USPS services. And don't forget that the Postal Service exerts tight control over customers' mailboxes -- even though those boxes were bought and paid for by customers. Not to mention that the USPS, alone among carriers, is able to refuse to deliver to your door if, in their opinion, it would be inefficient to do so, forcing you to put a rural mailbox at the curb or even use a communal mailbox in a housing development or business park. FedEx, UPS and the rest need to deliver to your door, but the USPS can do what it pleases. And I haven't even gotten to the part where they don't have to pay state and local taxes -- not even remit sales tax, even on non-postal items like neckties(!) and phone cards -- and don't have to follow local building codes or zoning ordinances. One block over from my home in a suburb of Louisville, there's a street called Annshire Way that used to be a dead-end street and was a quiet place to live. A few years ago, the Postal Service built a "caller service" facility on land it owned bordering the end of Annshire and forced it open. Now the folks on Annshire have to put up with postal customers driving up and down the street 24 hours a day, and there's nothing that the city of Watterson Park could do about it. (We don't have a city police department; if we did they could have a car blocking the end of the street, but then the Postal Inspectors would probably arrest the cop!) On the other hand, the Postal Service *is* subject to a number of inefficient Federal practices that private-sector businesses would never put up with. Those black Unisys point-of-sale terminals (the ones with the dual green-screen monitors, one 7" and one 12") are a case in point. That contract was originally awarded to another company (I've forgotten who) that actually did build the terminals and install them. Then Unisys filed a protest, and when it was upheld the USPS was required to buy the Unisys terminals, install them, send the other terminals back to the other company and get its money back, leaving that company -- through no fault of its own -- stuck with thousands of custom-built POS terminals for which there was no market! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the fact that USPS wields so much power and the ability to cause so many hassles for other delivery businesses that whatever 'ineffecient federal practices' they are subject to are offset by their ability to control the flow of paper mail pretty much as they please. The fact that USPS does exercise such a heavy-handed approach in their delivery of the mail (requirement as to placement and ownership of the box in front of your house, etc) and that they do have the right to charge for mail delivered by someone else in contravention of their legal monopoly on first class mail makes it easy for the 'Bill 602P' stories to make the rounds. People just assume that USPS is doing its thing again, right or wrong. Remind me sometime to tell you about the fraud hive and hell-hole known as '60690', a mythical (geography-wise) zip code in downtown Chicago which consists of a major postal facility on Clark Street. I think 60691 through 60699 also sort through that office; they are likewise just numbers used by very large companies for mail sorting purposes out of that office. '90' implies the several thousand box holders, 'callers' and others who pick up mail there by driving their own van or pickup truck to the loading dock in the basement, and others. They have had some major-league crooks working there over the years (or as most back-office administrators like to say in a euphemistic way, 'employees who have problems') and it seems like no matter how often the postal inspectors clean that house -- of fraud-driven postal patrons and USPS employees alike -- the fraud just continues to gravitate there. Sometimes the crooked employees prey on the crooked patrons making it all the more interesting. You don't work in a large postal sorting facility for very long without learning which patrons tend to deal with 'cash money in the mail'; something that many 60690 box holders tend to famous for. And when those people working for USPS on Clark Street find out that a boxholder tends to get 'cash money in the mail', i.e. a twenty or fifty dollar bill wrapped between a couple sheets of paper, they do not waste time going to work on it. In a case from about 1980, about a dozen employees of USPS at the 60690 lockboxes ripped off the Missionary Fathers for about a hundred thousand dollars over a period of several months. The Missionary Fathers is that bunch which sends you unsolicited the appeal for money for impoverished children in third-world countries. They send you a cheezy pen or maybe some worthless trinket along with a very sad picture of some poor child, who it is alleged made the enclosed trinket as 'a present for you' and would you like to send him a present also? You are told in the letter which accompanies it that your gift, or love-offering will insure that little Sing Poo or whatever name they give him will have a nourishing lunch each day at the school where he goes. Oh, their pitches would put you on such a guilt trip when you would read them, and mail addressed just to Missionary Fathers at 60690 came in by the truck load daily. Quite a bit of the mail would have cash in it along with a note saying something like 'God bless you for the work you are doing helping impoverished children like Sing Poo and others like him.' Cutting to the chase on the whole thing, Missionary Fathers barely stayed within the law, but when the Postal Inspectors went in late one night and cleaned out the basement sorting room on Clark Street downtown, they had *secret video tapes* showing employees filching a letter or two out of the bin where Missonary Fathers mail was tossed and secreting it in their pocket, etc. Employees who tried to deny any involvement were confronted with the video tapes and told it would go a lot easier on them if they would just make a full written confession (which had already thoughtfully been prepared for them by postal inspectors and only needed to be signed) on the spot. They even had a video tape of a woman who was one of the supervisors taking a big handful of mail out of the Missionary Fathers bin and waddling away with it to the women's restroom. When she came out a few minutes later she had none of the mail with her. Then she went over to the bin for a *second helping* and took another handful of mail back into the same restroom. She confessed that she had gone into one of the stalls, opened the mail, pocketed the cash money and then flushed everything else down the toilet. The Missionary Fathers prudently removed their lockbox from 60690 and set up shop in one of the post offices in the north suburbs, where rich people live and where the quality of the help hired by USPS to work the third shift sorting mail was of a higher calibre than what they could get to work for them in downtown Chicago on midnights. It got so bad in fact, that the Chicago postal facility for sorting mail is no longer actually in Chicago. A few years ago they moved it out to one of the western suburbs where they hoped they would find employees more to their liking. Like the Amoco credit card processing office which moved its entire operation from Chicago to Des Moines, IA when the employees got so out of control and the fraud to such a high level it was impossible to manage, USPS just packed up one day and said they were moving the whole thing to Forest Park, IL, a 'nice' community, with 'nice, family people' living there who would be glad to have a job. The Canadian Postal Service has problems also; you may recall about ten years ago the employee in the post office in Toronto who did a number on Oral Roberts the evangelist; he hit him up for quite a large sum of money over a few years before they finally caught him in the act. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 1999 13:32:43 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> U.S. House of Representatives >> 1207 Longworth House Office Building >> Washington, D.C. 20515-4611 >> Phone: (202) 225-2931 Fax: (202) 225-2944 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder what/who is in the 1207 Longworth > location and at the US Capitol switchboard (202-225) phone numbers? PAT] A quick visit to www.house.gov reveals that happens to be the phone number and address of Rep Bob Barr from Georgia. But I doubt he has anything to do with this particular urban legend. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: Dale Neiburg Subject: Re: E-mail Legislation "Bill 602P" Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:28:41 -0400 In TELECOM Digest 265, we all got a chain letter purporting to come from: > U.S. House of Representatives > 1207 Longworth House Office Building > Washington, D.C. 20515-4611 > Phone: (202) 225-2931 Fax: (202) 225-2944 And in issue 267, America's Moderator pondered: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder what/who is in the 1207 Longworth > location and at the US Capitol switchboard (202-225) phone numbers? PAT] The address and voice phone (didn't check fax) are both assigned to Rep. Bob Barr (R, Ga), who is probably innocent of any involvement with this foolishness. Dale Neiburg ** NPR Satellite Operations ** 202-414-2640 "Vegetarians eat only vegetables...but watch out for the humanitarians!" --Nancy Lebovitz, slightly misquoted ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #270 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Aug 2 13:30:13 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA05271; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:30:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:30:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908021730.NAA05271@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #271 TELECOM Digest Mon, 2 Aug 99 13:30:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 271 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Motorola GSM Tri-band 'Digital World Phone' (Monty Solomon) Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? (Fred Goldstein) Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop?(Joey Lindstrom) Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? (Steven Lichter) Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? (Marty Bose) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Mike Stockman) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Scott Hurlbert) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Eric Florack) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (J.F. Mezei) Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered (Adam H. Kerman) Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in Calif (Marty Brenneis) Watch Out for Forever Paging (Dave Levenson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Motorola GSM Tri-band 'Digital World Phone' Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:35:49 -0400 Motorola Introduces GSM Tri-band 'Digital World Phone' The New Motorola Timeport L7089 Phone -- a Passport to the World August 2, 1999 8:20 AM EDT SCHAUMBURG, Ill.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 2, 1999--From a world market leader in dual-band technology comes a new leading-edge mobile phone that works on all three GSM frequencies (GSM 900/1800/1900 MHz). This compact and stylish new tri-band "Digital World Phone", the Timeport(TM) L7089 phone, confirms once again that Motorola is at the forefront of technological innovation in personal mobile communication. Now, globetrotters will be able to use the same phone when travelling between Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia (900/1800 MHz), as well as the Americas (1900 MHz) on GSM networks, where roaming agreements are in place. Richard Midgett, Chairman of the GSM Association, commented: "This is what the customer has been waiting for, a phone that truly enables the GSM dream - a global system for roaming in one simple handset. We challenged the industry to deliver this capability and we congratulate Motorola on being the first to respond." The Timeport L7089 phone has almost all the features a busy executive could desire to help stay connected wherever and whenever. Designed for people who need to manage their world on the move, the Timeport L7089 phone is feature-packed and will be available in sea blue. The Timeport L7089 phone incorporates Voice Recognition technology, which enables the user to use voice commands to dial phonebook entries or to control certain menu items. The VoiceNote(TM) digital voice recorder feature enables users to record important memos and messages such as phone numbers or travel directions when on the move. VibraCall(TM) discreet alert helps allow the ultimate in discretion -- the phone will vibrate rather than ring. The Timeport L7089 phone also features IrDA technology, which enables users to conduct a wireless data or fax call. IrDA technology allows users to connect their laptop to their ISP or corporate server to check email or browse the Web, using the phone as a wireless modem. With Starfish's patented TrueSync multi-point synchronisation, Timeport L7089 phone users keep critical information synchronised and up-to-date from anywhere in the world. The TrueSync solution allows users to synchronise information among popular desktop organisers, PDA's and Web-based address books including Microsoft(TM) Outlook(TM), Lotus Organizer(TM), Lotus Notes(TM), ACT!(TM), Sidekick(TM), Schedule+, Hewlett Packard Windows CE devices, 3 Com Palm devices, REX(TM) and REX PRO(TM), Excite Planner and Yahoo! Address Book. TrueSync Short Messaging Service (SMS) Client allows users to receive and send SMS messages on the fly. Messages can be originated on the laptop and sent wirelessly via the Timeport L7089 phone. TrueSync SMS also manages personal information by providing users with a desktop folder to select and store important messages. The Timeport L7089 phone has an easy to read, large, full graphics OptimaxTM display with contrast controls and a built-in headset connector(b). Expected to be available across Europe, Middle East and Africa in the third quarter of 1999, the Motorola Timeport L7089 phone is designed to be among the lightest (108g with the standard Lithium Ion battery) mobile phones in its class. The standard battery provides up to 40-150 hours of stand-by time(a) or, equally impressive, talk time of up to 120-210 minutes(a). Optional accessories include batteries, battery door, chargers, adapter plugs, DSP handsfree car kit, belt clip, leather holsters and the Smart CELLect(TM) phone to PC data cable(b). Motorola is a global leader in advanced electronic systems and services. It liberates the power of technology by creating software-enhanced products that provide integrated customer solutions and Internet access via wireless and satellite communications, as well as computing, networking, and automotive electronics. Motorola also provides essential digital building blocks in the form of embedded semiconductors, controls and systems. Sales in 1998 were $29.4 billion. Reference press releases: http://www.mot.com/GSS/CSG/Help/PR/pr971111_8900dualband.html; http://www.mot.com/GSS/CSG/Help/PR/pr970701_mt8900.html; http://www.mot.com/GSS/CSG/Help/PR/pr970701_mt8900.html; http://www.mot.com/GSS/CSG/Help/PR/pr970303_8800.html Notes: (a) Actual performance will be dependent on network configuration, signal strength, function selected, and SIM card. It is also dependent on the combined use of standby/talk time. The use of a SIM card which does not support the Stop Clock feature results in significantly reduced standby time. (b) The use of wireless telephones and their accessories may be prohibited or restricted in certain areas. Always obey the laws and regulations on the use of these devices. For further information, please contact the Motorola EMEA Press Office at Hill and Knowlton PR , 0044 171 973 4477/news.mot.emea@hillandknowlton.com, 5 Theobalds Road, London WC1X 8SH ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 21:48:16 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein Subject: Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? At 07:04 PM 7/31/1999 -0400, marten@landstrom.pp.se writes: > I'd like to know how many Americans that do have the real choice > between two or more LECs; as far as I know the old LECs are still the > only available choice for residential customers. Very few. There are a handful of places where CLECs offer residential service to individual houses via Bell loops, though few CLECs even try. And there are a handful of places where the cable TV company offers telephony via the cable plant. I'm one of the lucky few to have that option; my analog house line now comes from MediaOne over its HFC cable plant. They're lighting up their Massachusetts territories pretty quickly and by now probably have around 8000 subscribers on two switches. A handful of multiple dwelling unit complexes around the country also have CLEC service, sometimes from a cable company. > Maybe someone could clarify this for me. The LEC, as I understand it, > owns the access network from the Central office to the customer. > Correct? Correct. Except for CATVs or anyone else who wants to bother stringing separate cable, or someone who uses radio (extremely rare here at present). > Is there any ongoing initiative about achieving local loop unbundling > so that not only the Internet access but also the adsl service could > be provided by other companies than the LEC if so desired by the > customer? Local loop unbundling has been the law since 1996, and there are xDSL CLECs who make use of it. But the price is high enough to make this more of a business option (substitute for fractional-T1 or T1 ISP access) than a residential one. Also, loop rentals are generally higher than the residential local service rate, making it look unattractive to many CLECs. Plus, until two months ago, the only way to get at an unbundled loop was to rent a 100 square foot collocation cage in the ILEC CO, if the ILEC had room. Which they amazingly were often very short of, even in buildings where a single digital switch replaced a huge mass of crossbars or steppers. There is now a federal order that ILECs offer cageless collocation space, by the square foot or rack, so you don't need a whole cage to get in, and they have to let you inspect a CO that they claim is full. These steps should result in more collocation and unbundled-loop usage over the next year. ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 18:39:59 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Re: Real Competiton in the Local Loop On Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:08:30 -0400 (EDT), L. Winson wrote: > Many customers will never get the opportunity of competitive service > since they're too small a user to interest a competing company. Many > competitors are seeking only high volume business accounts (such as a > company with a 1,000 line centrex). Here in Calgary, I've got Sprint Canada local service. I wrote a message here a few months back about the trials and tribulations of actually getting that service activated (most of the problems being caused by the ILEC, Telus), but since then the service has been top-notch. It's available to ALL customers, residential and big-business alike, in the Calgary area, including three small towns (under 10,000) and one small city (about 15,000) in the surrounding area. This service should be available in about 5 more major cities by year's end. > A second major issue is that many of the competitors aren't really > separate companies with their own physical plant. Rather, they are > simply buying bulk services from the main phone company and reselling > them (as do many long distance carriers.) >> Maybe someone could clarify this for me. The LEC, as I understand it, >> owns the access network from the Central office to the customer. >> Correct? > Yes, the LEC will continue to have a REGULATED monopoly on the local > loop plant. IMHO this is wrong, I think new companies should be > required to build their own plant and be responsible for maintenance. > In this way they'll be true competitors and eliminate finger pointing > in case of problems. I disagree. Do you want every phone company that wants to start up business to be digging up the back alleys, roadways, etc.? It'd be a freaking nightmare! Further, it would discourage competition even more, particularly in smaller markets. I think they should adapt the model used by the British rail system. That is, the existing copper plant should be spun off into a separate company, which would then sell access to that plant to both the ILEC's as well as new competitors, and would take care of maintenance. This company wouldn't be a monopoly, however: companies that want to do their own wiring would be free to do so ... but this company would certainly put new copper into new housing districts as a matter of course and basically be ubiquitous. From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom Email: Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU or joey@lindstrom.com Phone: +1 403 313-JOEY FAX: +1 413 643-0354 (yes, 413 not 403) Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU Yesterday I found out what doughnuts are for. You put them on doughbolts. They hold dough airplanes together. For kids, they make erector sets out of play-dough. --Steven Wright ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) Date: 01 Aug 1999 23:37:17 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? In article , Joseph wrote: > marten@landstrom.pp.se on Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:58:57 GMT wrote: >> I'd like to know how many Americans that do have the real choice >> between two or more LECs; as far as I know the old LECs are still the >> only available choice for residential customers. >> Is there any ongoing initiative about achieving local loop unbundling >> so that not only the Internet access but also the adsl service could >> be provided by other companies than the LEC if so desired by the >> customer? With the amount of cages that we are installing for PacificBell you would think there was all kinds, but the companies that have these are only taking business customers and large ones at that. Until the FCC or PUC tell these companies they must take all comers you will not see it. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one, have you hunted one down today? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 21:29:24 -0800 From: Marty Bose Subject: Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? Having a bunch of friends working at CLEC's (and just starting a new job at one myself), I see a different dynamic at work. At least in the SF Bay Area, a lot of the local fiber carriers want to be able to offer service, but can't (or won't) because of the building owners. In one case I am aware of, a customer wanted some OC-12's just a short distance from the CLEC switch, but the owner wanted $100K up front and a percentage of the billing to allow the CLEC to pull fiber into the building. No sale on this deal, since the owner wouldn't put a penny into bringing the service into the building, it was all on the CLEC. Marty ------------------------------ From: Mike Stockman Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 20:21:03 GMT Organization: @Home Network In article , Eli Mantel wrote: > If I start getting threatening calls, depending on the state I'm in, > I'm not allowed to covertly tape those calls without first getting a > court order? So that when I testify against this person in court, the > best corroborating evidence won't be available? > What valid public purpose do such laws serve? You don't have to get a court order ... just notify the other party(ies) involved before continuing. They can then choose to continue or not, just as most people would like to have that choice. If they don't continue, you have no dealings with them to protect yourself from. If they do continue, they'll either be more honest, knowing they're being taped, or they'll give you whatever evidence of wrongdoing you need. There's nothing that says you can't tape a conversation; you just can't tape someone (or be taped, to turn it around) without full knowledge. To tape someone without full disclosure is sneaky and underhanded, and it's against the law in Maryland. Mike ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Scott Hurlbert Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:19:51 -0800 I wonder how many people would be leaping to Tripp's defense if, three years ago, she had been quietly "dealt" with. I don't blame her a bit for recording the phone calls. If you trust this President you are a sap and deserve what you get. Certainly she should be prosecuted for making the recordings. She did break the law. And in the sentencing the judge should let her off with probation. What I don't like about this is people preaching "rights." Hey, here's a news flash for all those people: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PRIVATE PHONE CALL! Never has been, never will. If you want a private phone call you had better buy some encryption equipment. I would expect much less privacy during a phone call than an email over the internet! Would you speed to get a sick friend to the emergency room? Would you take an illegal drug if you knew it would cure your cancer? There is absolutely nothing wrong with breaking a law to protect yourself, when you are ready to face the consequences. Many times breaking the law is a better choice. Show of hands: How many have ever sped to pass a car? As for an "expectation of privacy," I think that is valid to have the "expectation" of privacy, but only in court. Had Tripp been found responsible for accusing the President or Lewinsky of things they did not do and causing them harm, then she should be sued. Had she tried to use the tapes in a criminal prosecution, they should have been thrown out. Instead the Special Prosecutor used them for the Grand Jury -- an entirely different matter. Hey, if the SP and the GJ had not listened to the tapes they would STILL BE PRIVATE and safely in the custody of Tripp. Tripp is not the one guilty of violating any one's privacy. As far as I know she fought their use. Are tapes you never listen to really recorded? As far as I know she has not used the tapes or much else for financial gain. Scott ------------------------------ From: Eric Florack Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 23:32:02 -0400 Organization: Free File Farm BBS >> I think this is an issue of (1) personal privacy and (2) illegal >> search and seizure. I think people should have a reasonable >> expectation that their communications will be kept confidential >> per the law. > Interestingly enough, I live in a state where as long as *one* party > knows the conversation is being taped, that's fine. No laws are being > broken. Quite correct. There's more here, too; The DA is a Democrat, as is the Lt. Gov. in that state, who apparently informed her close friend, Hillary Clinton of the charges being filed well in advance of their being filed. There is much to suggest this is a political reprisal, and little else. IMHO, this case will be tossed out of court. Even if it was not dismissed, it will certainly not be the test case for taping phone conversations that many see it as; there's far too much in the way of self-defense on the part of Tripp, and far too much in the way of vengeance on the part of the Clintons and their supporters to allow this to be the clean-cut ruling that would establish communi- cations law. /E ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 03:17:41 -0400 Eli Mantel wrote: > I don't get the idea behind laws that prohibit a person from taping a > phone conversation to which they are a party without first getting the > consent of everybody on the call. Don't know the actual legal reason, but I agree with it. For one thing, in the USA, they keep stating "you may remain silent, everything you say may be taken as evidence against you, you'll have a right to consult your lawyer etc" when someone is arrested. If you know you are being taped, you'll know better not to make certain jokes, comments etc. If you do not know you are being taped, you may make certain jokes, comments etc which may cause you lots of trouble (sexual harassement etc etc). ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 1982 Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 18:02:00 GMT Dave O'Shea wrote: > Think of it as putting Barney Fife in charge of the nation's highway > system. The results are not going to be pretty. You mean Barney Fife wasn't already in charge of US transportation policy? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 12:05:01 -0700 From: Marty Brenneis Organization: Sparkology Subject: Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley)wrote: > Hey phone companies! Make your $#@! machines accept ten digit dialing > for all numbers even if its NOT a long distance call! Well, here in the Pac*Bell land of 415 and 510 it seems that 10D dialing has worked for several years. I found it working when my laptop dialled the area code for a call when I was in that area. The call worked fine rather than failing. I now program all my dialing thigns to always dial 1+10D. Have you tried it in your area? (remember this is only for direct CO lines. PBX lines will be different depending on the PBX programmer.) Marty Brenneis spambot@sparkology.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 07:56:28 -0400 From: Dave Levenson Organization: Westmark, Inc. Subject: Watch Out for Forever Paging A company using the name Forever Paging offers a totally-free pager. This is a caller-pays service. The caller dials what should be a toll-free number, and is charged 35 cents to send a pager message. Do you administer a PBX? A COCOT? A hotel? Be sure to request from Forever Paging a complete list of all their DNIS codes so that you can block them or charge your end-users accordingly. Dave ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #271 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 3 02:44:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA04085; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 02:44:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 02:44:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908030644.CAA04085@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #272 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Aug 99 02:44:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 272 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Special Report: Can You Trust AT&T Wireless PCS Text Messaging? (Weinstein) Metcalfe's Law in Reverse (Monty Solomon) AT&T Acquires Honolulu Cellular (Monty Solomon) Consumer Group Vows to Oppose Phone Industry Plan (Monty Solomon) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Larry Conzett) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Michael David Jones) Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered (Dave O'Shea) Plugging Modem Into Romanian Phone System (efg@ncsu.edu) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Linc Madison) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Steve Riner) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 99 19:42 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Special Report: Can You Trust AT&T Wireless PCS Text Messaging? Greetings. Can you trust that messages sent via AT&T Wireless PCS Text Messaging will always be reliably processed and received? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be no. What's worse, when failures do occur, there may be absolutely no indication to the sender of the message that their communication has vanished into the ether. An an example of a serious risk associated with a more general class of modern, widely-used communications systems, I believe that this is worthy of a detailed explanation and significant concern. The use of text paging directly to digital/PCS cellular phones is rapidly replacing the use of conventional numeric and text pagers. Such phone-based text messaging, actually called "SMS" (Short Messaging Service) has a number of advantages over older paging systems. One of its biggest benefits is that the network will normally store messages for some extended period of time (e.g. 72 hours) for delivery to the phone, if the target phone is off or out of range. When the phone again is available, the message is delivered, and the network receives confirmation that the message was successfully delivered to the phone. SMS messages typically can range between 110 and 150 characters or so, depending on how they are submitted and various formatting considerations. The usefulness of SMS has caused an explosion in its use for all manner of free and pay information and warning systems, where automated systems will send messages (usually via an Internet e-mail interface provided by the wireless carriers) to users. Such messages could be anything from critical status messages for system support or medical personnel, to news bulletins and stock price warnings to traders. But how useful is the entire environment if you cannot depend on messages ever actually being delivered, and if messages can vanish into a "black hole" without any warning? AT&T Wireless (ATTWS) has, as you might expect, one of the most extensive SMS implementations. They provide three interfaces to the service: -- a web-based "form" interface: type in your message and hit send -- a direct dialup interface for specialized text paging software's use -- an Internet e-mail interface: messages are sent to @ The Internet e-mail interface is by far the simplest method to use both for Internet-connected individuals and automated systems. Unfortunately, it is also this interface that apparently has the most problems. Since phones are addressed via their mobile number without any additional access codes being required, anyone who knows a cellular number can "flood" a phone with messages, eating up a user's entire monthly message allocation in short order--there's no way for the phone user to control such access. There are also some "denial of service" issues associated with this same lack of access control. But of even greater concern is the fact that text messages submitted to ATTWS via their e-mail interface, at least for delivery to phones in the Los Angeles area (I don't have info about other areas at this time -- it might well be a nationwide issue) can frequently simply "vanish" after delivery to the ATTWS e-mail gateway. Such "vanished" messages are never delivered to the phone user, nor is any indication of a problem ever received by the original sender of the message. When this problem was originally brought to my attention recently, I was initially a bit skeptical, but testing indicated that it is indeed the case. While messages submitted via the web or paging software dialup interfaces were reliably delivered to phones, it was not difficult to find instances of messages submitted to ATTWS via their Internet e-mail interface which had simply gone poof! Interestingly, these seemed to all occur in the weekend period (Friday night through Sunday morning), at least in my testing. In all cases, Internet mail delivery logs showed conclusively that the messages in question had been accepted successfully by the ATTWS SMS e-mail server (which is actually labeled as an "airdata.com" server). But the messages were never delivered to the target phones. My initial contacts with ATTWS customer service about this were not inspiring. While the front line folks tried to be helpful, they have very limited information to work with (this is unfortunately typical of ATTWS customer service in many respects -- many seemingly simple questions may receive answers ranging from correct to totally wrong from different representatives). In this case, one rep told me that they had "heard" that the web interface was better to use and more reliable, and that he'd heard about paging system problems on weekends. He suggested that perhaps they take the system down for testing on weekends. This of course, even if true, would not be an acceptable explanation for the permanent disappearance of potentially important text messages! Eventually I found my way to an ATTWS manager, with whom I am in continuing contact. While he initially didn't seem to understand the issue -- at one point asking me if I'd ever missed an old-style regular page and pointing out that ATTWS service doesn't cover all areas (neither of which are at all relevant to the store-and-forward SMS environment and the problems at hand), he did ultimately appreciate both the issue and concerns. He promised to try track this down with the technical folks, and I am still hopeful of a response, but as of this time, I have yet to receive an explanation. Since then, additional testing has revealed more vanished messages following the same pattern, including as recently as this past weekend. So, the moral of this story is actually pretty simple -- it can be very risky to simply *assume* that messages sent through the ATTWS PCS Text Paging Internet e-mail gateway are actually being delivered to user phones, even if the messages are accepted by the ATTWS e-mail gateway itself. This should be kept in mind if you're expecting to receive important information or other messages via such a method. The end-to-end, store-and-forward sophistication of SMS should be able to avoid the whole concept of permanently "missed pages" in the conventional sense over reasonable periods of time. Unfortunately, it appears that with ATTWS, at least at present in some areas, this simply isn't the case. I'll of course report back when more information about this matter is available. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein Moderator, PRIVACY Forum --- http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Host, "Vortex Daily Reality Report & Unreality Trivia Quiz" --- http://www.vortex.com/reality ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 00:29:30 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Metcalfe's Law in Reverse Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, July 25, 1999: Metcalfe's Law in Reverse Current attempts to split the Web into many isolated mini-networks undermine the long-term potential of the Internet which depends on universal interconnection: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990725.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Whose bright idea was this, anyway? If anyone would care to write up something on this, it might be a very interesting thread. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T Acquires Honolulu Cellular Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:06:42 -0400 NEW YORK, Aug. 2 /PRNewswire/ -- AT&T (NYSE: T) said today it had completed its acquisition of Honolulu Cellular Telephone Company from BellSouth announced April 8, 1999. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed. Honolulu Cellular, in which BellSouth has had an interest since June 1986, will further expand AT&T's wireless footprint with nearly 900,000 pops. "Honolulu Cellular is a welcome addition to the AT&T family," said Dan Hesse, President and Chief Executive Officer of AT&T Wireless Services. "With this acquisition, we continue to expand our nationwide coverage. Our mainland customers will now enjoy their wireless digital features when they are in beautiful Honolulu and Maui. And our Honolulu customers will enjoy service in more than 7,000 cities when they come to the mainland. " AT&T (http://www.att.com) is the world's premier provider of voice and data communications, with more than 80 million customers, including businesses, government and consumers. AT&T runs the world's largest, most powerful long-distance network and one of the largest wireless networks in North America. The company is a leading supplier of data and Internet services for businesses and the nation's largest direct Internet service provider to consumers. AT&T also provides local telephone service to a growing number of businesses. AT&T Wireless Services provides a broad range of wireless voice and data communication services. At the end of second quarter, 1999, AT&T Wireless Services had more than 11 million total wireless customers. SOURCE AT&T ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Consumer Group Vows to Oppose Phone Industry Plan Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 18:07:58 -0400 WASHINGTON, Aug 2 (Reuters) - Consumers Union, one of the leading consumer advocacy groups, will strongly oppose a plan announced on Monday by major phone companies to restructure local and long distance rates, the co-director of the group's Washington office said. Earlier on Monday, six top phone companies including AT&T Corp. (NYSE: T), Bell Atlantic Corp. (NYSE: BEL) and SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE: SBC) said they had asked federal regulators to revise the complex web of subsidies that keeps phone service affordable throughout the country. The Federal Communications Commission must approve the plan, but opposition from consumer groups could doom the proposal. The industry proposal essentially would reduce long distance rates while increasing local phone rates. "We will adamantly oppose this," Gene Kimmelman, co-director of the Washington office of Consumers Union, said in a telephone interview. "This plan is like an industry cabal and demonstrates the lack of competition for the consumer business." Kimmelman estimated the plan would raise local phone bills by several dollars a month, or a total of $2 billion a year on all consumers nationwide. "It's totally unfair for modest users of telephone service," he said. "They get no assurances and there is no public oversight. For example, long distance companies could choose to pass on the $5.6 billion annually they would save only to business and high volume residential customers. Lower long distance rates for those customers would dramatically exceed the amount of increases in local bills. But customers who made only a few long distance calls per month would likely pay more in new local charges than they saved in lower long distance rates. ------------------------------ From: Larry Conzett Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 23:40:53 GMT Organization: @Home Network Tennessee is pretty straight forward about such things: Either party in a two person call may tape their conversation without notice to the other. Only at the point that the taped conversation is relayed/transmitted/played for/heard by a third party is the law broken. That allows you to tape your calls for your own purposes, but never a third party's. In a two party conversation, if a third party wishes to monitor the conversation, both parties must be aware (prior to the conversation taking place) that the conversation may be monitored "for quality assurance". This allows service observing by managers, trainees and quality control agents. In most cases, that means a statement in the outgoing auto-attendant message will notify outside parties. Inside parties (employees, etc) are required to be notified (usually by company manual and/or by written acknowledgement) that employee phone conversations are not subject to any right of expectation of privacy. At that point, both parties have been notified of taping/monitoring. Conversations taped at that point are only subject to the question of rights of ownership of the tape. I would say a tape of Bill Gates calling tech support at AOL would be market-worthy, but should he expect a portion of profits or right of ownership of his spoken word? Legal issues not fully delineated in most courts. ------------------------------ From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: 2 Aug 1999 15:34:58 -0400 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA Eric Florack writes: >>> I think this is an issue of (1) personal privacy and (2) illegal >>> search and seizure. I think people should have a reasonable >>> expectation that their communications will be kept confidential >>> per the law. >> Interestingly enough, I live in a state where as long as *one* party >> knows the conversation is being taped, that's fine. No laws are being >> broken. > Quite correct. There's more here, too; > The DA is a Democrat, as is the Lt. Gov. in that state, who apparently > informed her close friend, Hillary Clinton of the charges being filed > well in advance of their being filed. There is much to suggest this is > a political reprisal, and little else. Except, of course, for the (proud) public admission of guilt on the part of the criminal. Whether you like the Clintons or not, I think it's preposterous to look at what happened as a result of this illegal action and the harm (deserved or not) it caused to several parties and say that the prosecution is political. > IMHO, this case will be tossed out of court. > Even if it was not dismissed, it will certainly not be the test case > for taping phone conversations that many see it as; there's far too > much in the way of self-defense on the part of Tripp, and far too much > in the way of vengeance on the part of the Clintons and their supporters > to allow this to be the clean-cut ruling that would establish communi- > cations law. What's to establish? I have known for a long time that the laws on legality of taping phone conversations varied from state to state, and thought that they were long-standing, well-established laws in most cases. The simple ruling in this case is that Linda Tripp broke an established, non-controversial law. I've heard several people talk about "self defense", as though Tripp were somehow going to be the target of some sinister Clinton plot if she hadn't made the tapes, but I really don't understand that. She was completely obscure until the tapes surfaced. Until she made a celebrity of herself with the tapes, most people had no idea who she was or that she had any connection to the entire affair (so to speak). Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu The connection between the language in which we think/program and the problems and solutions we can imagine is very close. For this reason restricting language features with the intent of eliminating programmer errors is at best dangerous. - Bjarne Stroustrup in "The C++ Programming Language" ------------------------------ From: Dave O'Shea Subject: Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered Organization: snaip.net Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 18:25:00 GMT Adam Frix wrote in message news:telecom19. 264.5@telecom-digest.org: > Why do people call this "censorship"? When a parent stops his child > from seeing and reading things that the parent feels are not in the > best interests of the child, that is most assuredly NOT "censorship". > It's called parenting. The problem is that it's *not* parenting. It creates an assumption that inappropriate sites will be blocked from children. But as has been shown over and over, that is simply not the case. These packages, along with the ISP's that promote themselves as family-oriented: - Miss most of the content, including the most revolting porn, which tends to be highly "mobile" - "Red-line" large areas of the Internet, because it's impossible to actually review it all. - Stupidly block useful sites that contain a keyword (Dick Nixon, etc.) - Amusingly, block sites that point out their flaws. (Much along the lines of letting movie producers select which movie critics get printed each day.) > Too many people in this world seem to think that everyone should be > allowed to see and read whatever he wants -- children included. One could infer from your statement that you believe someone should be allowed to also decide what adults like myself are allowed to see and hear. Am I incorrect? > Worse, too many of those people are nosy busybodies who want to insert > themselves between the parent and the child, as if they know better > than the parent and are more capable of making that particular > decision for the child. Baloney. I'm a parent of two small kids, and I'll turn off brainless crap on TV that many parents probably *would* allow. What I object to is someone who sells a "child safety" product that is defective both in concept and execution. My objection would be the same if someone was selling child safety seats that ejected the child in 90% of collisions. I do *not* intend to stop people from using these products -- I simply want them to be aware of the their weaknesses, faults, and defects. > Censorship, my foot. Parenting. Parenting, my foot. Ignorance and laziness. ------------------------------ From: efg@ncsu.edu Subject: Plugging Modem Into Romanian Phone System Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 18:12:29 -0400 Organization: North Carolina State University In two weeks, I will be in Romania to adopt a baby. I would like to get on the Internet from my hotel room. What kind of an adaptor do I need to plug their telephone cable into my US PCM-CIA modem? Thanks, Ed ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 16:59:36 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' In article , Dave Close wrote: > Jim Sielaff writes: >> Does anyone know of a searchable database which indicates a 'local' >> or 'toll' call from a particular NPA-NXX? > It occurs to me that you could, or a software vendor could, provide a > package which learns which dialing sequence works for any particular > number. Your system could then try dialing it all possible ways in > some rational sequence and keep track of what works for a particular > NPA-NXX. You probably wouldn't need to do much re-dialing after the > first day or two. That solves the question of "how do I dial this number?" but not the question of "is this number local or toll?" If I dial 1-510-663-xxxx, which I must dial as 1+10D, it's a local call; however, if I dial 663-xxxx (equivalent to 1-415-663-xxxx), that's a toll call. My proposal for California: (1a) Increase local calling radius to at least 17 miles. (1b) Simultaneously eliminate "Zone 3." (1c) Simultaneously consolidate rate centers in major metropolitan areas. (#1c is for reasons of numbering efficiency, but it's important that these steps be simultaneous.) (2) Whenever a region goes to mandatory 1+10D, possibly after a suitable interval for redirection recordings, permissively allow 10D on local calls originating in that region. (3) Regions that retain 7D HNPA dialing could opt to implement toll alerting. Eventually, the entire state would have 10D local (permissive 1+10D) and mandatory 1+10D toll. Of course, in-state toll rates in California are among the lowest in the United States, so it's less of an issue here than in places like Texas, Maine, and Nebraska. ------------------------------ From: Steve Riner Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 19:53:57 -0500 Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. Fred Goldstein wrote in message: > At 01:00 PM 7/28/1999 -0400, Daniel Ganek wrote: >> Why can't the FCC mandate that 10 digit dialing ALWAYS works? > You have it wrong. They should mandate that *11* digit dialing ALWAYS > works. > You can't make 10-digit work, because it's ambiguous: Is that a prefix > or an area code you're dialing? If you dialed 508-905-9901, does it > stop and 508-9059 because 508's a valid local prefix? The whole point > of the 1+ was to separate the two. > Of course it became known as a toll prefix, so in many areas it is, > but you *must* use the 1+ to distinguish between a prefix and an area > code. Only in some areas do they "protect" local area codes from > being used as prefix codes, and that gets harder and harder. Part of the problem with the FCC mandating ANYTHING about local dialing patterns is the discrepancy in local free/toll zones. The Twin Cities local calling area is about 50 miles north to south and 40 miles west to east (got a map? Look at Cambridge and Montgomery [N/S], and Monticello and the Wisconsin border [W/E]). Largest in the country, I understand. Here, using 1+ as a toll indicator is critical, at least lacking another method to indiate a toll call such as a tone. This local calling area includes most (but not all) of the 612 and 651 area codes, and even a few exchanges in 507. By next year, when the new 952 and 763 splits of 612 kick in, the confusion would be even greater. So, with this large a local calling area, 10-digit local FNPA dialing is most appropriate. I hope NANPA and U.S. West hang on to one of the other candidate area codes, like 357, as a protected number unless mandatory nationwide 10-digit dialing on all calls (goodbye 1+) comes into play before the overlay of 612 is needed four or five years hence. Steve Riner Columbia Heights MN ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #272 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 3 03:30:12 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA05651; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:30:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:30:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908030730.DAA05651@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #273 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Aug 99 03:30:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 273 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in Calif (John R. Levine) Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in Calif (Coredump) Re: Call Waiting Signal Variations (danielzr@netzero.net) Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? (Steven Lichter) Web-Surfing Cellphones Coming to the United States (Monty Solomon) Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging (Walter Dnes) GSM and COSSAP (ural77@my-deja.com) Some Changes in TELECOM Digest Daily E-News (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Aug 1999 13:39:49 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA >> Hey phone companies! Make your $#@! machines accept ten digit dialing >> for all numbers even if its NOT a long distance call! > Have you tried it in your area? (remember this is only for direct CO > lines. PBX lines will be different depending on the PBX programmer.) In some states, including CA, NJ, and NY, 1+10 works everywhere. In others, including Texas and Massachusetts, for some asinine reason the telcos deliberately disable 1+10 dialing for local calls. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: coredump@noxspam.enteract.com (Coredump) Subject: Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 22:14:07 GMT Organization: Cores' Internet and Storm Door Company On Sun, 01 Aug 1999 12:05:01 -0700, Marty Brenneis wrote: Beware. In some areas, 1+10d is automaticaly handed off to your LD provider regardless if it's local or not. Check your LD bill :-). Core > Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley)wrote: >> Hey phone companies! Make your $#@! machines accept ten digit dialing >> for all numbers even if its NOT a long distance call! > Well, here in the Pac*Bell land of 415 and 510 it seems that 10D > dialing has worked for several years. I found it working when my > laptop dialled the area code for a call when I was in that area. The > call worked fine rather than failing. I now program all my dialing > things to always dial 1+10D. > Have you tried it in your area? (remember this is only for direct CO > lines. PBX lines will be different depending on the PBX programmer.) coredump@NOSPAM.enteract.com http://www.enteract.com/~coredump Breaking the speed limit on the Information Superhighway ------------------------------ From: danielzr@netzero.net Subject: Re: Call Waiting Signal Variations Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 22:55:13 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Modern modems try to deal with noise -- including call waiting -- and don't hang up. You can attempt to fiddle with the s10 register, which may help somewhat. Better bet, there are now services, boxes, and now a modem which either re-route (services), beep, pop a caller id box on your screen, automatically hang up, etc depending on the device/ service. Post a message in comp.dcom.modems - I (or someone else) can give you more information. The call waiting boxes have sophisicated DSPs which can descriminate between all the modem noise, and the beep of call waiting. It took quite a few months for some of the companies to get their act together to be able to reliably detect call waiting. In article , paul1@nospam.com wrote: > Are call waiting signals different between carriers or even within > different areacodes/exchanges/prefixes of the same carrier? I am a > Bellsouth customer in Atlanta trying to figure out why call waiting > won't interrupt my modem connection. ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? Date: 2 Aug 1999 22:18:56 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , L. Winson wrote: >> I'd like to know how many Americans that do have the real choice >> between two or more LECs; as far as I know the old LECs are still the >> only available choice for residential customers. > It depends on the area served and on the customer. > Many customers will never get the opportunity of competitive service > since they're too small a user to interest a competing company. Many > competitors are seeking only high volume business accounts (such as a > company with a 1,000 line centrex). This is not correct. Many (if not most) competitive LECs have residential tarriffs filed and can thus be forced to install a single residential line just about anywhere they have any equipment in the LATA, if you're willing to push the issue. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) Date: 03 Aug 1999 04:45:42 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? In article , Fred wrote: > Plus, until two months ago, the only way to get at an unbundled loop > was to rent a 100 square foot collocation cage in the ILEC CO, if the > ILEC had room. Which they amazingly were often very short of, even in > buildings where a single digital switch replaced a huge mass of > crossbars or steppers. There is now a federal order that ILECs offer > cageless collocation space, by the square foot or rack, so you don't > need a whole cage to get in, and they have to let you inspect a CO > that they claim is full. These steps should result in more > collocation and unbundled-loop usage over the next year. I saw the order for cageless collocation, do you have any idea what a security problem that could cause, people running all over the place and who knows what could happen. I don't work for a ILEC anymore; I'm retired, but I do contract for for the local ILEC as well as the people who have the cages and for the most part they feel the same way, they don't want anyone messing around with there equipment either. Apple Elite II 909-359-5338. Home of GBBS/LLUCE, support for the Apple II and Macintosh 24 hours 2400/14.4. OggNet Server. The only good spammer is a dead one, have you hunted one down today? ------------------------------ Reply-To: Monty Solomon From: Monty Solomon Subject: Web-Surfing Cellphones Coming to the United States Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 17:26:51 -0400 By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com August 2, 1999, 4 a.m. PT After many years of hype, mobile phones that allow users to surf the Internet are finally coming to U.S. shores. Analysts and ambitious companies for years have painted pictures of a world where access to email and the Internet could be as close as the nearest cellphone. But with the exception of a few slow services and spotty coverage, the United States has seen little in the way of genuine wireless data offerings. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,39981,00.html ------------------------------ From: waltdnes@interlog.com (Walter Dnes) Subject: Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 02:45:01 GMT Organization: Interlog Internet Services On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 07:56:28 -0400, Dave Levenson wrote: > A company using the name Forever Paging offers a totally-free pager. > This is a caller-pays service. The caller dials what should be a > toll-free number, and is charged 35 cents to send a pager message. > Do you administer a PBX? A COCOT? A hotel? Be sure to request > from Forever Paging a complete list of all their DNIS codes so that > you can block them or charge your end-users accordingly. How can they do that ?!? I checked out their main page at http://www.npscom.com/foreverpage.html Either I'm unusually dense today or they're talking out of both sides of their mouth. From their FAQ page at http://www.npscom.com/foreverfaqs.html > Why don't I have a monthly bill? > Because the person paging you pays 35 cents to page you, > the way it should be. > Can my Foreverpage be paged from a pay phone? > Yes, a Foreverpage number can be dialed from any phone. > Is there an additional charge to page from a pay phone? > No, your Foreverpage number can be accessed toll-free from any phone. > Is it still 35 cents calling from any state? > Yes, it is 35 cents to complete a Foreverpage call using your > toll/free access number. > Why would anyone want to pay 35 cents to page me? > The calling party in most cases pay 35 cents anyway and remember > Foreverpage is toll-free. Is this new math or what? 35 cents != toll-free Walter Dnes procmail spamfilter http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/spamdunk/spamdunk.htm ------------------------------ From: ural77@my-deja.com Subject: GSM and COSSAP Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 06:57:20 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Hi, I need to simulate GSM by using COSSAP, and I'm using an educational license. However, educational license doesn't cover all the necessary components. Basically, I need the source code for two of the components, CORRELATOR_GSM and EQUALISOR_GSM. If you have any source code for those two components, not necessarily COSSAP codes, I'm aware of the license restrictions, I'd be pleased to hear from you. Thanks URAL ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 03:11:53 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Some Changes in TELECOM Digest Daily E-News Now that there is a choice of several audio news feeds available at http://telecom-digest.org/news the top of the page was getting a little cluttered with links to the various audio services. I removed all the links as such, and everything now is in a box of 'options' as would appear in an HTML 'form' so you can select the audio(s) of choice that way instead. The present collection of audio services available are as follows: Associated Press Audio Update Also directly reachable at http://telecom-digest.org/news/AP.html Five minute news broadcast, updated about every 10-15 minutes around the clock, seven days per week. BBC Online World News This is the default audio, at http://telecom-digest.org/news/index.html A five minute news broadcast, updated hourly seven days per week. National Public Radio News Also directly reachable at http://telecom-digest.org/news/NPR.html A five minute news broadcast updated hourly seven days per week. CNN Headline News Also directly reachable at http://telecom-digest.org/news/CNN.html A live continuous audio feed from the Cable News Network 'Audioselect' service for the internet. This is also provided as the background audio in http://telecom-digest.org/chat for people who want to listen to news while chatting on line with others. National Weather Forecast Also directly reachable at http://telecom-digest.org/news/weather.html A two minute national weather summary updated several times daily. Vortex Daily Reality Report and Unreality Trivia Quiz Also directly reachable at http://telecom-digest.org/news/reality.html This is our own Lauren Weinstein's daily audio commentary, about two minutes in length, dated five times per week. Daily Briefing Also directly reachable at http://telecom-digest.org/news/dailybrief.html This is a two-part feature, about six minutes in total. It consists of 'Computerworld Minute' and 'Internet Radio' with short technical reports. CNET Radio Also directly reachable at http://telecom-digest.org/news/CNET.html This is their twice daily, five days per week report of news about the internet. Time lengths vary. You can go to directly to any of the audio feeds above as noted, however the remainder of the page is identical regards the various news reports of the day. If you wish to just go to http://telecom-digest.org/news then you will 'default' to BBC Online's audio service. If you do not want to listen to audio while reading the news (or when in the chat room), simply use the player control button to turn it off. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #273 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 3 14:45:05 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA29384; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:45:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:45:05 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908031845.OAA29384@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #274 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Aug 99 14:45:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 274 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #193, August 3, 1999 (Angus TeleManagement) Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client (TELECOM Digest Editor) Free ISPs in UK - Background (Steve Hayes) Re: eBay Fradulent High Roller Bidders (Alan Boritz) Re: eBay Fradulent High Roller Bidders (Matthew Black) Re: Metcalfe's Law in Reverse (Matt Simpson) Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered (Adam Frix) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:41:34 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #193, August 3, 1999 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 193: August 3, 1999 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * AT&T Canada ............... http://www.attcanada.com/ * * Bell Canada ............... http://www.bell.ca/ * * Lucent Technologies ....... http://www.lucent.ca/ * * MetroNet Communications ... http://www.metronet.ca/ * * Sprint Canada ............. http://www.sprintcanada.ca/ * * Telus Communications....... http://www.telus.com/ * * TigerTel Services ......... http://www.citydial.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Bell to Charge for Unsuccessful Directory Searches ** Royal Bank Takes Stake in AOL ** Teleglobe Share Price Drops on Profit Warning ** TSB and Telco Research Merge ** Payphone Competition Opens in Saskatchewan ** Committee to Plan 416 Area Code Change ** Nortel Merges Wireless, Carrier Units ** Bell Canada to Buy BCE Mobile Minority Shares ** Motorola Seeks to Increase Iridium Share ** MTS Wants to End Prime Line Service ** PEI Residents Get Free E-Mail ** Six Million Cellphone Subscribers ** Teleglobe Unit Retails to Business ** Cablecos Want to Charge Competitors for Inside Wire ** Two Telus Executives Resign ** Macdonald, Lowry Join SaskTel Board ** Financial Reports Aliant AT&T Canada BCE Manitoba Telecom System Mitel Telus ** Correction ** Telemanagement Features CBTA Discussion ============================================================ BELL TO CHARGE FOR UNSUCCESSFUL DIRECTORY SEARCHES: CRTC Telecom Order 99-741 approves a Bell plan to begin charging 75 cents for all Directory Assistance calls, even if the number requested is unlisted or not found. Commissioners Stuart Langford and Andrew Cardozo issued dissenting opinions. ** The Commission approved Bell's plan to merge local and long distance directory assistance into a single "411" service, but rejected including free automated call completion as part of the service. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/internet/1999/8045/04/o99-0741.htm ROYAL BANK TAKES STAKE IN AOL: Royal Bank of Canada has paid US$60 Million for a 20% stake in Internet provider AOL Canada. TELEGLOBE SHARE PRICE DROPS ON PROFIT WARNING: On July 29, Teleglobe announced that its second-quarter earnings will be 50% lower than expected, and that its 1999 profit may be 17% below analysts' estimates. The company's share price then fell by 22%, cutting more than $2 Billion from its total market value. ** Teleglobe attributes its problems primarily to falling prices for wholesale long distance. TSB AND TELCO RESEARCH MERGE: Two call accounting and network management companies, TSB International (Toronto) and Telco Research (Nashville), merged on August 1. The merged company, to be called Telco Research, will have corporate headquarters in Toronto and operational headquarters in Nashville. PAYPHONE COMPETITION OPENS IN SASKATCHEWAN: Competitive payphone providers may now operate in Saskatchewan on the same terms as in the rest of Canada. Canada Payphone says it will soon introduce its AT&T Canada-branded payphones in Saskatchewan. COMMITTEE TO PLAN 416 AREA CODE CHANGE: Canada's NPA Code Relief Planning Committee will meet this month to adopt a final schedule for the introduction of a new Area Code and mandatory 10-digit local dialing in Toronto. The most recent study predicts that the 416 Area Code will "exhaust" by the third quarter of 2001. NORTEL MERGES WIRELESS, CARRIER UNITS: Nortel Networks has merged its wireless and carrier businesses into a Wireless and Carrier Solutions business unit, with Ian Craig as President. BELL CANADA TO BUY BCE MOBILE MINORITY SHARES: Bell Canada, which now owns 65% of BCE Mobile, will pay $1.6 Billion to acquire the rest of the shares. MOTOROLA SEEKS TO INCREASE IRIDIUM SHARE: Bloomberg News says that Motorola has offered to put an additional US$400 Million into Iridium, increasing its share from 18% to 40%. The deal is said to be contingent on creditors agreeing to trade $1.5 Billion in debt for 25% ownership in the satellite phone company. (See Telecom Update #185, 189) MTS WANTS TO END PRIME LINE SERVICE: Manitoba Tel has asked the CRTC for permission to withdraw Prime Line one-number routing service by the end of September. The telco says its Prime Line equipment is not Y2K compliant and has too few customers to justify an upgrade. ** Last year, Bell Canada withdrew a similar proposal after widespread customer protest. (See Telecom Update #147, 159, 162) PEI RESIDENTS GET FREE E-MAIL: A pilot project of Industry Canada and the government of Prince Edward Island is offering Island residents free e-mail at 50 sites and a personal "portal" at Ottawa's Access.ca Web site. The pilot runs through October. SIX MILLION CELLPHONE SUBSCRIBERS: The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association says that six million Canadians are now wireless phone subscribers, up 1.4 million from a year ago. ** The Mobility companies say they have 3.23 million subscribers (up 132,000 from the previous quarter), including 2.17 million at Bell Mobility (up 79,000). (See Telecom Update #191) TELEGLOBE UNIT RETAILS TO BUSINESS: Teleglobe has set up a new business unit, Teleglobe Business Solutions, to supply phone, data, and Internet services to the North American corporate market. The new unit incorporates Telco Communications, a division of Teleglobe's Excel subsidiary. CABLECOS WANT TO CHARGE COMPETITORS FOR INSIDE WIRE: In Broadcasting Public Notice 1999-124, the CRTC invites comments on a proposal by the Canadian Cable Television Association to allow cablecos that own inside wire in multiple-unit dwellings to charge competitors for using it. Current regulations require cablecos whose customers cancel service to either sell the wire to the building owner or operator, or to remove or abandon it. Deadline for comments: September 8. http://www.crtc.gc.ca:80/eng/bcasting/notice/1999/p99124_0.txt TWO TELUS EXECUTIVES RESIGN: Jim Grey, President of Telus Advanced Communications, and Gary Goertz, Telus's Chief Financial Officer, have resigned "to pursue personal interests." Grey will be replaced by Roy Osing, Senior Vice- President Strategic Alliance Management, and Goertz by Barry Baptie, Controller for Telus Communications. MACDONALD, LOWRY JOIN SASKTEL BOARD: Former Bell C2anada President John MacDonald and former Telus President Donald Lowry have joined the SaskTel Board of Directors. FINANCIAL REPORTS: The following reports are for the second quarter. ** Aliant: The Atlantic telco's net income (excluding one- time charges) was $52.1 Million, up 24% from last year. Revenue rose 20% to $522 Million. Sales of IT, emerging business, and satellite divisions almost quadrupled, reaching 19% of total revenue. ** AT&T Canada: A $457 Million one-time gain from the MetroNet merger led to net income of $374 Million for the quarter. The report includes two months' results of MetroNet and one month of the merged company. Local access lines in service June 30 totaled 238,927. ** BCE: Profits rose 24% to $460 Million, plus a $4.2 Billion one-time gain due mainly to Ameritech's purchase of a stake in Bell Canada. Two-thirds of the profit increase came from BCE's stake in Nortel Networks, where net earnings from operations rose 74% to US$368 Million. Bell Canada profits dipped about 3%. ** Manitoba Telecom System: "Stabilizing" long distance revenue and market share contributed to a 6.9% revenue increase. Net income dipped 2% to $24.1 Million. ** Mitel: Adjusted net income was $12.5 Million, down from $17.1 Million. Mitel attributed the decline largely to a drop in semiconductor sales, a result of problems related to Mitel's purchase last year of Plessey Semiconductor. Overall sales rose 7% to $311 Million. ** Telus: Local service accounted for 54% of Telus' revenue of $1.45 Billion, which rose 1.3% from last year. Long distance revenue slipped 6%. Net income of $134 Million fell 18%. CORRECTION: Videoconferencing organizer ThunderVision is based in Dryden, Ontario, not -- as erroneously reported in Telecom Update #192 -- in Thunder Bay. TELEMANAGEMENT FEATURES CBTA DISCUSSION: The September issue of Telemanagement will contain responses to Ian and Lis Angus's analysis of the demise of the Canadian Business Telecommunications Alliance and their call for a new business telecom users organization. ** The articles by Ian and Lis have been posted at http://www.angustel.ca. Further comments should be sent to editors@angustel.ca. To subscribe to Telemanagement call 1-800-263-4415, ext 225, or visit http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm.html. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at http://www.angustel.ca/update/up.html 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1999 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:01:24 PDT From: ptownson@telecom-digest.org (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client So you might ask, what else is old? Lawyers are forever blowing their mouths off, blustering, acting obnoxious and hoping someone will be impressed. The latest member of the fraterity is Jonathan Emery, the lawyer for Network Solutions, Inc. Emery wants you to know that if you block any spam coming from his client, you will find yourself in serious legal problems. His client NSI will spam when it pleases and who it pleases, and you, as an ISP or system administrator had better not block the email. Don't you love it? This all got started when Paul Vixie, who publishes the 'Black Hole list' threatened to add NSI to the Black Hole. A lot of people feel that NSI improperly uses data in its possession as the (former monopoly) domain registrar to spam the net. They've been asked to stop permitting spam to go out of their network, but thus far have not been very cooperative with the rest of the net. Many or most ISPs and other admins use the Black Hole list as a guide in helping them adjust their filter rules as necessary to prevent spam from getting through. If your site is on the list, chances are none of your email at all will get anywhere except in bit buckets around the world when it is transmitted. It is not a new concept in the world of computer networking; even a number of years ago when Fido was a predominant network one of the rules was if your site is a nuisance to everyone else, then there was an enforced silence. So Paul Vixie told NSI if they were seemingly unable or unwilling to get their computers and users under control and stop sending out spam, that other sysadmins would get the problem under control for them. Either NSI stops the spam, or others will stop it for them. Now comes Jonathan Emery, hotshot lawyer. Where exactly he finds a legal basis for his arguments, I do not know. The Black Hole list is a voluntary mutual effort by sysadmins and ISPs who say to the offenders on the list, 'we do not want to hear any more from you.' But Emery nonetheless proposes suing Paul Vixie if his client NSI gets listed in the Black Hole. What I am going to do is route NSI to my personal bit bucket starting today. You might like to do the same. If/when Emery takes his head out of his own black hole and comes to grips with the fact that netizens and our ISP/sysadmins run things here -- he does not -- I'll consider removing the block I placed on his client's email. The story on this printed below appears Tuesday in our news section, http://telecom-digest.org/news ... just click on the CNET picture on the left side of the screen near the top to see the complete story and other news items. PAT ------------------------ NSI threatens to sue Blackhole List operator By Dan Goodin August 2, 1999, 1:00 p.m. PT Network Solutions is threatening to sue an influential antispam group if it provides a filter that could be used by hundreds of networks worldwide to block the dominant registrar's email. Mail Abuse Prevention Systems, a Redwood City, California, group founded by Internet pioneer Paul Vixie, said in an Internet posting that it is considering adding NSI to its Realtime Blackhole List following "repeated attempts to get them to stop sending unsolicited bulk commercial email to all domain holders." The filter, which lists Internet service providers and companies that permit spam to be sent on their systems, would then be made available to network administrators to use in blocking email from NSI and other offending organizations. The filter is used voluntarily by at least 180 licensed subscribers, Mail Abuse Prevention Systems, or MAPS, says on its Web site. The service has been instrumental in getting Microsoft Network, America Online, Netcom, and others to modify their email policies when those companies temporarily were blacklisted. NSI, however, is not taking the threat lying down. In a letter sent Friday, Jonathan Emery, NSI's general counsel, warned that MAPS faced serious legal action if it prevented NSI email from reaching its customers. "Network Solutions will not hesitate to take all actions necessary to protect its rights and ensure that its channels of communications to it own customers remain open," Emery wrote. "You should be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions should a company such as Amazon.com lose its domain name, and thus its e-commerce business, as a result of having its notices and invoices intercepted and destroyed." NSI, which until recently was the sole registrar of domain names ending in ".com," ".net," and ".org," periodically sends its customers marketing materials in addition to regular invoices and service announcements. Under an exclusive arrangement with the federal government, NSI registered more than 5 million domain names before a shared registration system was established. The arrangement gave NSI a wealth of information that the Herndon, Virginia,company says it has proprietary rights to. But not all NSI customers appreciate receiving the marketing material. One of them, the president of a company called Hypertouch, complained about the NSI email to MAPS, Emery wrote. Emery added that far from being spam, NSI's emails were "vital catalysts to free and open commerce," and that customers have the ability to get off the marketing list. Representatives from MAPS were not immediately available for comment. Despite all the bluster, however, at least one Internet lawyer said NSI would face an uphill battle suing MAPS over the filter, which network administrators actively have to seek out and install on their systems. "Given the purely voluntary nature of the Realtime Blackhole List, it's difficult to see any legal theory under which NSI could state a claim," said Dave Kramer, an attorney at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati who has handled several high-profile spam cases. MAPS has had scrapes with other powerful companies over its list, including Microsoft and Netcom, but so far those companies have been able to resolve their differences out of court, usually after they modified their systems to prevent them from being used by spammers. For example, free email and Web hosting provider GeoCities last year started requiring its users to enter a password to use email so that outsiders could not use the service to send spam. ------------------------------ From: Steve Hayes Subject: Free ISPs in UK - Background Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:18:41 +0100 Hi Pat and all, I've been away for several weeks and have had quite a lot of Digests to look through as a result. Anyway, in a comment following an item about the Pacifica radio business in Digest V19 No. 238, Pat remarked: > Have you heard the news that AOL is now giving *TOTALLY FREE* service > in Europe? I guess they are going to try Ted Vail's routine for awhile > and drive the other ISPs over there out of business. In the UK, we have quite a few "totally free" ISPs. The best known is Freeserve, which has just undergone a stock market flotation after rocketing from nowhere within a few months to become our biggest ISP. Like most ISPs here, Freeserve access is via a national "Lo-Call" (0845) number. Calls to it from anywhere are charged at or near the same rate as local phone calls. Of the call charge, a portion goes to the caller's phone company (most often BT) and the rest goes to the company providing the 0845 number (Energis I believe in the case of Freeserve). My understanding is that Energis then route the call into some modem pools that they maintain to provide "VPOP" (virtual point of presence) service to various ISPs. Anyway, it turns out that, even at local rates and after BT get their cut and Energis have covered their costs, there is enough left over to pay for the operation of Freeserve as well. Says something about our local call charges. Freeserve get additional income by charging for their support lines and from a modest amount of advertising and they hope for a pot of gold from net commerce. Of course their costs are low because they don't have to do any billing. The situation in the rest of Europe may be slightly different but European Union competition laws are forcing convergence. I have a Freeserve account and have been quite impressed though I'm still clinging on to my Compuserve account as well. Anyway, while I'm not inclined to be an apologist for AOL, I don't think that their free service is predatory in the way that Pat suggests. More like a rather belated response to an already entrenched competitor, I'd say. A comment on a totally different thread as well: the postal monopoly laws in the UK are a bit simpler than in the US. Anyone can deliver letters but only the Post Office can charge less than (I think) 1.00 UKP. They charge 0.19 UKP (about 30 US cents) or 0.26 UKP for next day delivery. Steve Hayes South Wales, UK ------------------------------ From: Alan Boritz Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 01:32:57 EDT Reply-To: Alan Boritz Subject: Re: eBay Fradulent High Roller Bidders On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 07:39:44 -0700, Matthew Black wrote: > In article , aboritz@ > CYBERNEX.NET says: >> But that's NOT the way eBay works, either. If Buyer Z bids a maximum >> $75, $5.50 will be the last (visible) bid. If buyer B then bids a >> maximum $75, the current price will jump to $75 *immediately* and >> he'll be outbid by Buyer Z (since he didn't exceed the other bid). If >> Buyer C also bids $75 he'll also be outbid by Buyer Z, but tied with >> Buyer B. If Buyer Z retracts his bid, Buyers B and C will still be >> tied, but the one who bid first would be the bidder, but at $75, not >> $30. The system is automatic, so maximum bids are escalated as soon >> as competing bids are recorded. > I'm out of my mind here because this doesn't make any sense. Why > does B's $75 bid immediatly change the current bid price to $75, > but Z's does not? Because Ebay uses a proxy bidding system. The only price shown is the minimum amount needed to win the item's bid. The remainder of the bid is hidden until someone else submits another bid. > Do you understand that Z's bid was submitted > using a different profile from A's? The whole idea of the scam is > not to have one profile submit two bids but to pose as a second > reluctant bidder. Doesn't make a difference. Once the bogus high bid is retracted, the *lowest* winning bid is restored. In practice, though, a bidder can see the results of his bid immediately. All he has to do is outbid by one of whatever the increment is (i.e. 50 cents, $1.00, etc.), so there's a good chance that in this case the first (bogus) bidder will need to quickly outbid the *new* high bidder, though at a lower price than the bogus bid. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:16:46 PDT From: Matthew Black Subject: Re: eBay Fradulent High Roller Bidders On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Alan Boritz wrote: > Because Ebay uses a proxy bidding system. The only price shown is > the minimum amount needed to win the item's bid. The remainder of the > bid is hidden until someone else submits another bid. >> Do you understand that Z's bid was submitted >> using a different profile from A's? The whole idea of the scam is >> not to have one profile submit two bids but to pose as a second >> reluctant bidder. > Doesn't make a difference. Once the bogus high bid is retracted, the > *lowest* winning bid is restored. In practice, though, a bidder can > see the results of his bid immediately. All he has to do is outbid by > one of whatever the increment is (i.e. 50 cents, $1.00, etc.), so > there's a good chance that in this case the first (bogus) bidder will > need to quickly outbid the *new* high bidder, though at a lower price > than the bogus bid. Alan-- You still miss the point. Not all eBay auction are Proxy ... some are traditional "Dutch." With such a system, a buyer cannot bid lower than the highest known bid. That hurts the seller because REAL buyers are discouraged from bidding on an overpriced item. The seller misses an opportunity for competetive bidding as a direct result of the bogus bid. Please explain to me and the rest of us why this can't happen. This thread remains open not because we disagree on the ethics; it continues because we don't understand how eBay prevents the scam. There are bidding methods other than the proxy system! The proxy system itself is subject to abuse. However, that is fodder for another thread. -----------------------------(c) 1999 Matthew Black, all rights reserved-- matthew black | Opinions expressed herein belong to me and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer california state university | network services BH-180E | e-mail: black at csulb dot edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 6D 14 36 ED 5F 34 C4 B3 long beach, ca 90840 | E9 1E F3 CB E7 65 EE BC ------------------------------ From: msimpson@uky.edu (Matt Simpson) Subject: Re: Metcalfe's Law in Reverse Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 08:47:09 -0400 Organization: University of Kentucky Computing Center In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, July 25, 1999: > Metcalfe's Law in Reverse > Current attempts to split the Web into many isolated mini-networks > undermine the long-term potential of the Internet which depends on > universal interconnection: > http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990725.html > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Whose bright idea was this, anyway? I don't think anybody actually came up with a "bright idea" to "split the Web". I think it's just that all the folks out there trying to figure out how to maximize their own profit are creating that effect. For example, Nielsen's article mentions the recent instant messaging wars between Microsoft and AOL. I don't think either of those companies wants to create their own subset of the net; as Nielsen points out, that would be foolish. But by trying to find ways to lock customers into something that makes money for them, they may effectively split the Net even though that's not their intent. As another example, Nielsen talks about the "deep linking" controversy, and says that deep linking is good. It may be good overall, but again, if you're an individual trying to profit from selling ads, it may be bad for you. Nielsen says: "Users who follow a narrowly targeted link are likely to be hot leads with an interest in buying a specific product or service. It is unproductive to insist that such interested users be dumped at the home page and required to find their own way around the site. Links are one of the most effective Web marketing methods, so it is extremely short-sighted to prevent other sites from pointing to you. " That depends on what product or service you're selling. If, for example, you're Ford Motor Company, and some Mustang fanatic deep-links to Mustang pages on the Ford web site, that's probably a good thing. But if you're a "portal" web site, and your real customers (the ones who give you money) are your advertisers, and the only "product" that you're selling is page hits, then maybe you're better off if people spend a little more time wandering around and see a few more ads. It may not be best for your "users", but they're not your "customers". And I think that's the problem: what's best for the overall development of the net is not necessarily what's best (at least short-term) for the folks who are trying to make a profit on it. Matt Simpson - Paris, KY ------------------------------ From: adamf@columbus.rr.com (Adam Frix) Subject: Re: A New Breed of ISP Emerges: Filtered Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 09:49:42 -0400 Organization: Road Runner Columbus In article , Dave O'Shea wrote: >> Too many people in this world seem to think that everyone should be >> allowed to see and read whatever he wants -- children included. > One could infer from your statement that you believe someone should be > allowed to also decide what adults like myself are allowed to see and > hear. Am I incorrect? You are absolutely incorrect. First off, I was talking about the filtered ISPs, which is where this thread started. I don't know how it got off onto net-nanny software packages, which are useless. Secondly, I was commenting on the current fad of "free-range" parenting, whereby children should be allowed to do and see whatever they want, for to do otherwise would be "harming" the children, most likely their "self-esteem". I was simply pointing out that for parents to use such tools as are available to them, such as filtering ISPs, is NOT "censorship". Parents have the right AND RESPONSIBILITY to raise their children in a responsible manner, and quite often that means keeping the child from seeing or reading something at some point in time. Censorship? Not at all. But there are those who would have you think so. And it's those people I'm scared of -- because most often, those are the people who disagree with how I want to raise my children, and therefore think they should take the job over from me because they think *they* know better. "It takes a village." Harumph. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #274 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 3 16:12:07 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA03667; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:12:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:12:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908032012.QAA03667@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #275 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Aug 99 16:12:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 275 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging (Chris Wysocki) Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging (Joseph Wineburgh) Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging (mmx@unibiz.net) Re: Special Report: Can You Trust AT&T Wireless PCS Text Msg? (G Hlavenka) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Alfredo De La F) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Eric Florack) Re: Consumer Group Vows to Oppose Phone Industry Plan (John R Levine) Re: Consumer Group Vows to Oppose Phone Industry Plan (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? (marten@landstrom.pp.se) Re: Would Uncle Sam Like to Spy on You? (mactani@msn.com) Symantec Not So Secure After All (TELECOM Digest Editor) Local Calls Handled by LD Carrier? (Bob Goudreau) Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in Calif (Rob Rosenberg) Musical DTMF (John Saxe) Tariff Information Sought (mactani@msn.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 14:22:45 -0400 From: Chris Wysocki Subject: Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 07:56:28 -0400, Dave Levenson wrote: > A company using the name Forever Paging offers a totally-free pager. > This is a caller-pays service. The caller dials what should be a > toll-free number, and is charged 35 cents to send a pager message. > Do you administer a PBX? A COCOT? A hotel? Be sure to request > from Forever Paging a complete list of all their DNIS codes so that > you can block them or charge your end-users accordingly. Being very concerned about proliferation of these charges on my Bell Atlantic bill I immediately did a web search for these guys and found an e-mail address for inquiries (csgc@rcn.com). I wrote a polite note asking how to add the ANI for my lines to their Billed Number Screening database. Much to my surprise, the person who responded (C. Gerencser) stated there is no way for them to block calls to their service from my, or any other calling number! He then went on to say that since his service requires the caller to press "1" to accept the charges, he is able to cram his charge onto the phone bill for the calling number because this method "fully complies with FCC regulations". His position is, if you don't want the charges, don't call the number; if you do call the number, don't press "1". A further exchange of e-mails elicited the statement that there are literally "tens of thousands" of 800/888/877 numbers associated with his service, so any attempt to compile a blocking list to place into my PBX would be imposssible. I wrote back to explain why having a Billed Number Screening database would be a good idea as it would prevent the hassle of disputed bills. He told me to get lost and stop wasting his time, and even threatened me with legal action if I wrote to him again! He went so far as to imply that I would harass him by maliciously calling his service just to incur charges that I would later dispute! I did say in one of my e-mails to him that I would expose his ridiculous responses in a report to TELECOM Digest. He seemed to think that was quite funny. Chris Wysocki Data Life Associates, Inc. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you have copies of that email, would you share them with us? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Wineburgh Reply-To: Subject: Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:51:29 -0400 It's a shared toll-free number(s), once dialed, prompts for your pager's PIN. The gentleman I spoke with stated that there is an 'up front' message to let the caller know they will be charged for the call, and it gets billed back to their local telephone bill via the LEC. I guess they haven't heard about Bell Atlantic (and other LEC's) anti-cramming enforcement. You can now call them and have them block any charges other than theirs and your LCL/LD toll carrier ... Not only that, but I thought this was illegal at one point! It looks like a VERY small company in that the 'paging' page was the only one that was complete. The ones for calling cards, 1+ LD were still 'under construction' One more number to worry about blocking. Boy the list is getting Loong ... PS - Hey Dave!!! #JOE ------------------------------ From: mmx@DELETEMEunibiz.net Subject: Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:07:02 -0400 Organization: PLA914 Walter Dnes wrote in message: > On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 07:56:28 -0400, Dave Levenson > wrote: >> A company using the name Forever Paging offers a totally-free pager. >> This is a caller-pays service. The caller dials what should be a >> toll-free number, and is charged 35 cents to send a pager message. >> Do you administer a PBX? A COCOT? A hotel? Be sure to request >> from Forever Paging a complete list of all their DNIS codes so that >> you can block them or charge your end-users accordingly. > How can they do that ?!? I checked out their main page at > http://www.npscom.com/foreverpage.html > Either I'm unusually dense today or they're talking out of both > sides of their mouth. From their FAQ page at > http://www.npscom.com/foreverfaqs.html >> Can my Foreverpage be paged from a pay phone? >> Yes, a Foreverpage number can be dialed from any phone. >> Is there an additional charge to page from a pay phone? >> No, your Foreverpage number can be accessed toll-free from any phone. >> Is it still 35 cents calling from any state? >> Yes, it is 35 cents to complete a Foreverpage call using your >> toll/free access number. >> Why would anyone want to pay 35 cents to page me? >> The calling party in most cases pay 35 cents anyway and remember >> Foreverpage is toll-free. > Is this new math or what? 35 cents != toll-free On their FAQ page, they say two things that strike me as quite odd (Q and A added for clarity): Q: Can my Foreverpage be paged from a pay phone? A: Yes, a Foreverpage number can be dialed from any phone. [So who pays? The caller? How would that work, ACTS signalling? That's kind of a stupid way to do it, since they're pretty much just giving away their money on this. Unless, of course, they send a bill to the owner of the payphone.] Q: Why would anyone want to pay 35 cents to page me? A: The calling party in most cases pay 35 cents anyway and remember Foreverpage is toll-free. [Does this quite make sense? Foreverpage is toll-free but you pay 35 cents? And who pays 35 cents for a single call to a normal pager?] Either way, something is not quite right about this company. It could just be horrible wording, or they could be going for the trendy "sleazy telephone company" look. -MMX Another Armenia, Belgium ... the weak innocents who always seem to be located on a natural invasion route. -- Kirk, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3198.4 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could someone supply us with a few of the phone numbers used to reach this paging service? I imagine a lot of readers will want to test the circuits and the way in which billing is handled by pay phones around the USA. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelex.com Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Subject: Re: Special Report: Can You Trust AT&T Wireless PCS Text Messaging? Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 10:18:16 -0500 Lauren Weinstein wrote: > Greetings. Can you trust that messages sent via AT&T Wireless PCS > Text Messaging will always be reliably processed and received? > Unfortunately, the answer appears to be no. What's worse, when > failures do occur, there may be absolutely no indication to the sender > of the message that their communication has vanished into the ether. I'm having a similar problem with Ameritech CDMA cellular in the Chicago area. It seems that if my phone is on when a digital message is sent, the message comes through immediately. But if the phone is OFF when the message is sent, it may be several hours before it is delivered after the phone is turned on. By "Digital Message" I mean any of the following: Callback number entered by a caller into voicemail, notification of voicemail, text message. Usually, it works as it should: the phone is off, a message is sent, some time later I turn the phone on, and within a minute or so the message appears. That is what I expect. But sometimes, the phone (A Qualcomm 820, FWIW) may be on for hours -- with the "D" indicator on -- and then suddenly it will beep to tell me about a message that was sent yesterday. I griped to Ameritech, repeatedly, and it continues to work the same way. I just can't rely on the text messaging feature of my phone. Last week I had an even more maddening (and probably unrelated) failure: Someone called and left voicemail at 9:30pm Wednesday night. Thursday morning I called into the voicemail and retrieved messages but the Wednesday PM message was not among them. (I make it a habit to check periodically because I can't trust the notification.) Then I turned the phone off. At about noon, I turned the phone on again, and around 2PM the voicemail notification went off, announcing the "arrival" of the voicemail sent 16 hours ago! So I called Ameritech again. After a long time on hold while they looked into the problem, I was told that when a message is left in voicemail, the system sends a notification (duh!). If I don't call in to retrieve messages, the notification "recirculates" and is sent again. So far, so good. However, according to Ameritech, when the notification recirculates, the message itself recirculates along with it -- thus if I call to check messages while one is "recirculating" it will not be there. (Sounds like BS to me, but it's what they said.) I asked, "Do the people who explained this to you understand that it's a PROBLEM?" There was a pause, and she said (a bit huffily), "I can put in a trouble ticket if you like." In other words, no ... Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com nospam@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. Yes, that's really my email address. Don't change it. ------------------------------ From: Alfredo De La F" Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 10:49:26 -0400 If I am not mistaken, New York has a similar view of the matter. If one person is aware that they are being taped, then it is fine. Anyone know how this is handled in interstate or federal cases? -Alfred New York's Source For Affordable Unionized Telecom/Data Labor Voice & Data Installation, Maintenance and Services http://telephone-systems.com 877-819-4779 ------------------------------ From: eflorack@my-deja.com (Eric Florack) Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 16:46:38 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) wrote: > Eric Florack writes: >>>> I think this is an issue of (1) personal privacy and (2) illegal >>>> search and seizure. I think people should have a reasonable >>>> expectation that their communications will be kept confidential >>>> per the law. >>> Interestingly enough, I live in a state where as long as *one* party >>> knows the conversation is being taped, that's fine. No laws are being >>> broken. >> Quite correct. There's more here, too; >> The DA is a Democrat, as is the Lt. Gov. in that state, who apparently >> informed her close friend, Hillary Clinton of the charges being filed >> well in advance of their being filed. There is much to suggest this is >> a political reprisal, and little else. > Except, of course, for the (proud) public admission of guilt on the > part of the criminal. Whether you like the Clintons or not, I think > it's preposterous to look at what happened as a result of this illegal > action and the harm (deserved or not) it caused to several parties and > say that the prosecution is political. Well, one way to measure tha is to look at when the law was enforced previously, and under what conditions. The conditions being set here are very suspect, indeed. >> IMHO, this case will be tossed out of court. >> Even if it was not dismissed, it will certainly not be the test case >> for taping phone conversations that many see it as; there's far too >> much in the way of self-defense on the part of Tripp, and far too much >> in the way of vengeance on the part of the Clintons and their supporters >> to allow this to be the clean-cut ruling that would establish communi- >> cations law. > What's to establish? I have known for a long time that the laws on > legality of taping phone conversations varied from state to state, and > thought that they were long-standing, well-established laws in most > cases. The simple ruling in this case is that Linda Tripp broke an > established, non-controversial law. I've heard several people talk > about "self defense", as though Tripp were somehow going to be the > target of some sinister Clinton plot if she hadn't made the tapes, but > I really don't understand that. She was completely obscure until the > tapes surfaced. Until she made a celebrity of herself with the tapes, > most people had no idea who she was or that she had any connection to > the entire affair (so to speak). Not quite. She was only obsure insofar as the press wanted her to be; The problem the Clintons had with her was and is, her claims ... claims which the tapes went a long way to confirm. Charges against the Clinton have never been sparse. What has been sparse is confirmation, for reasons we won't get into here. These tapes provided that confirmation. And this is nothing more than payback for being a whistleblower. If this replrisal goes unchallanged, you might as well forget about any protection for whistle blowers. (Biting lip to halt making obvious reference to who WAS protected.) /E ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Consumer Group Vows to Oppose Phone Industry Plan Date: 3 Aug 1999 12:18:16 -0400 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > WASHINGTON, Aug 2 (Reuters) - Consumers Union, one of the leading > consumer advocacy groups, will strongly oppose a plan announced on > Monday by major phone companies to restructure local and long distance > rates, the co-director of the group's Washington office said. In this case, I believe that CU is off base. The industry plan unscrambles a lot of annoying and confusing charges. It gets rid of the PICC, lowers per-minute access rates, and raises the monthly "access" charge on phone bills. As far as I can tell, overall it's supposed to be revenue-neutral, with local telcos getting the same money they do now, but collected directly on local bills rather than taking a detour through your long distance bill. It's not revenue-neutral for individuals -- people who make no LD calls will have higher bills overall, people who make a lot of LD bills will have lower bills. In a perfect world, the monthly access charge would go away completely and be subsumed into the basic phone rate, but that's up to state PUCs and the FCC can't make them do that. CU's opposition is apparently because many of the people who don't make many LD calls are poor, and this would raise their phone bills. I'm not opposed to affordable phone service, but the current scheme is an extremely ineffiecient way to provide it. The impoverished granny with a black dial phone gets same subsidy as do teen and modem second phone lines in affluent households. If they want to subsidize basic phone service, that's what lifeline service is for, and if they think it doesn't cover all the people it should, they should lobby to extend it. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Consumer Group Vows to Oppose Phone Industry Plan Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 1982 From: ahk@chinNYETSPAMet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 17:27:11 GMT Monty Solomon wrote: > WASHINGTON, Aug 2 (Reuters) - Consumers Union, one of the leading > consumer advocacy groups, will strongly oppose a plan announced on > Monday by major phone companies to restructure local and long distance > rates, the co-director of the group's Washington office said. > Earlier on Monday, six top phone companies including AT&T Corp. (NYSE: > T), Bell Atlantic Corp. (NYSE: BEL) and SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE: > SBC) said they had asked federal regulators to revise the complex web > of subsidies that keeps phone service affordable throughout the country. Can we have links to documents that summarize the two positions? Does this have anything to do with PICC? > The industry proposal essentially would reduce long distance rates > while increasing local phone rates. Hah! There is no direct relationship between lower terminating charges and long distance rates. We've seen instances in which the FCC or Congress changed the subsidy relationship in favor of the long distance companies and smaller consumers of long distance service paid higher rates. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:48 EST From: FGOLDSTEIN@wn1.wn.net (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Real Competiton in the Local Loop? stevenl11@aol.comstuffit (Steven Lichter) writes: > I saw the order for cageless collocation, do you have any idea what a > security problem that could cause, people running all over the place > and who knows what could happen. I don't work for a ILEC anymore; I'm > retired, but I do contract for for the local ILEC as well as the > people who have the cages and for the most part they feel the same > way, they don't want anyone messing around with there equipment > either. No problem at all for the ILEC -- as the order states, the cageless collocators can go into a room where there is no ILEC stuff, or the ILEC can build a cage around *its* own area. Mutual suspicion among cageless collocators is a different problem. The solution is to NOT use CO/cage-style open racks. Instead, the cageless users put everything into lockable rack cabinets. This is the norm at some cageless CLEC collocation rooms anyway. Of course the people who already have the cages no doubt resent the lower cost of entry to new cageless competitors. But this is exactly the move needed to get some competition into the resi market. BTW, while someone recently stated that most CLECs have residential tariffs, it is NOT true that a CLEC can be forced to put in an analog line at resi rates in any old house. If a CLEC only tariffs T1-sized circuits, then that's what you can order from them. Some CLECs played around with reselling ILEC lines, but that was usually a flop and in any case isn't real competition for the network. Now if you want a PRI going into your house, a lot of CLECs will arrange it. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop? From: marten@landstrom.pp.se Organization: Stockholm Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 19:39:35 GMT Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > This is not correct. Many (if not most) competitive LECs have > residential tarriffs filed and can thus be forced to install a single > residential line just about anywhere they have any equipment in the > LATA, if you're willing to push the issue. They can actually be forced to install a residential line? Is there any obligation to serve the household market just because You enter the marketplace? Just curious, Marten ------------------------------ From: mactani Subject: Re: Would Uncle Sam Like to Spy on You? Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:52:50 -0400 Question: How much can company network manager look into individual PCs connected to the company LAN? Is there any software available to keep out nosy folks out of my PC? > Here is a story from ZDnet which I recommend: > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2304083,00.html > "U.S. backs off private monitoring" > "Under attack for its 'Cold War mentality,' the U.S. denies it plans > to monitor private networks." > No comments on this end; not today at least. I've already occupied > too much space in the Digest for this week. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:29:22 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Symantec Not so Secure After All For quite awhile now, Symantec has proclaimed itself as 'the leader in internet security. According to a story on Tuesday in the quick news summary at http://telecom-digest.org/news their web site was hacked a couple days ago, and it went unnoticed and unrepaired for about twelve hours. Whoever broke in altered the front page to announce that a virus had been installed in Symantec's computer. The people at Symantec were not pleased at all; and more than just a little embarassed that an intruder had gotten past them undetected. I would be embarassed also if I was going around the net trying to get ISPs and admins to purchase my security product and then woke up, had my first cup of coffee for the day and discovered that sometime the night before my highly touted, supposedly secure web site had been looted and vandalized. I would feel even worse if the way I found out about it was a user who *saw it first* and reported it to me, as supposedly happened in Symantec's case. PAT ------------------------------ From: Bob Goudreau Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:01 EDT Subject: Local Calls Handled by LD Carrier? coredump@noxspam.enteract.com (Coredump) wrote: > Beware. In some areas, 1+10d is automaticaly handed off to your LD > provider regardless if it's local or not. Check your LD bill :-). Specifically, which telcos in which areas do this? And is there any part of the country in which such an abuse by the LEC wouldn't violate some sort of tariff? Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 12:08:41 -0400 From: Robert A. Rosenberg Subject: Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California At 03:30 AM 8/3/1999 -0400, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: > In some states, including CA, NJ, and NY, 1+10 works everywhere. I beg to disagree (in reference to NY). I live in the 914 area code and if I attempt to dial 1+914-XXX-XXXX I get an intercept saying to not dial the 1+914 (it does not actually SAY this but that is the meaning). The ONLY place in NYS that I KNOW that 1+AC1+XXX-XXXX works if you are in AC1 is NYC (where both permissive 10D and 1+10D is allowed due to the new overlay to 212 last month). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 13:29:04 -0400 From: John Saxe Subject: Musical DTMF Credits and disclaimers. Musical frequencies were estimated without regard to the logarithmic nature of the natural scale. MIDI No. 60 is middle C. ABCD tones are thrown in just for drill. Indexes are arbitrary, even though they seem to make better harmonies. DTMF frequencies are per Newton's Telecom Dictionary. MIDI/Freq table is per http://vision1.cs.umr.edu/~johns /links/music/notefreq.htm DTMF really stands for "Don't Touch My F0N3Z" INDEX DTMF FREQ. NOTE MIDI NO. FREQ (a) 697 F 77 698.45 (b) 770 G 79 783.99 (c) 852 A 81 880.00 (d) 941 Bb 82 932.32 (e) 1209 Eb 87 1244.50 (f) 1336 E 88 1318.51 (g) 1477 Gb 90 1479.97 (h) 1633 Ab 92 1661.21 DTMF Tones: 1=(a)+(e) F/Eb 2=(a)+(f) F/E 3=(a)+(g) F/Gb A=(a)+(h) F/Ab 4=(b)+(e) G/Eb 5=(b)+(f) G/E 6=(b)+(g) G/Gb B=(b)+(h) G/Ab 7=(c)+(e) A/Eb 8=(c)+(f) A/E 9=(c)+(g) A/Gb C=(c)+(h) A/Ab *=(d)+(e) Bb/Eb 0=(d)+(f) Bb/E #=(d)+(g) Bb/Gb D=(d)+(h) Bb/Ab J Saxe, Telecom Mgr. the funny-looking building on 5th Ave. ------------------------------ From: mactani Subject: Tariff Information Sought Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:50:42 -0400 I am seeking any recommendation on obtaining various domestic and international tariff summary table or report services, for transmission capacity up to STM-1. Thanks. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #275 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Aug 3 19:58:08 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA12962; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:58:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:58:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908032358.TAA12962@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #276 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Aug 99 19:58:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 276 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Some 1+10D Local Calls Handled by LD Carrier (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in Calif (Linc Madison) Re: Local Calls Handled by LD Carrier? (Dave O'Shea) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Michael David Jones) Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging (Adam Frix) Re: Call Waiting Signal Variations (rkpatt758@my-deja.com) Re: Special Report: Can You Trust AT&T Wireless PCS Text (Roger Fajman) Re: Would Uncle Sam Like to Spy on You? (Don Seeley) Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop (Kevin DeMartino) Map of Mexico Zones / Bands (Tom O'Connell) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 16:24:14 -0500 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Some 1+10D Local Calls Handled by LD Carrier Bob Goudreau wrote: > coredump@noxspam.enteract.com (Coredump) wrote: >> Beware. In some areas, 1+10d is automaticaly handed off to your >> LD provider regardless if it's local or not. Check your LD bill > Specifically, which telcos in which areas do this? And is there > any part of the country in which such an abuse by the LEC > wouldn't violate some sort of tariff? This situation HAS happened, and been reported in TELECOM Digest over the past year or two. In those metro areas which have either permissive or mandatory "straight" ten-digit local dialing, SOME of the LECs have PROHIBITED any permissive 1+10D local dialing. I agree with Linc Madison that there is NO legitimate reason for doing this. What's even WORSE is that some LECs won't allow 0+10D for local calls billed to card/collect/3d-pty (i.e. from payphones) or requiring special operator assistance. True, 0(+'#') will get the LEC operator right away, but 0+10D local will save her some extra time in keying-in the destination local number. Some LECs (particularly US West) is PERMITTING 1+10D local dialing in many areas, particularly where "straight" 10D local (whether permissive or mandatory) is in effect - i.e. Phoenix AZ, Denver CO, Minneapolis/St.Paul MN metro, etc. HOWEVER, they US West doesn't seem to really "actively promote" such permissive _1+_ten-digit local dialing. And, the situation where 1+ten-digit _LOCAL_ calls (dialed with-OUT a 101-XXXX+ CAC first) being handed off to the LD carrier (whether the primary inTRA-LATA toll or inTER-LATA LD carrier) ... this is a MISPROGRAMMING of the dialed-number-to-routing TRANSLATIONS in the originating central office. It was reported in this Digest and elsewhere that US West had some MAJOR flaws in translations last year when 1+10D (and maybe even "straight" 10D) dialing was used to call between NPAs 612 and 651 or within your own NPA in the "Twin Cities" MN area, when US West was introducing the new 651 NPA there, and preparing the changes in dialing translations. MANY local calls were being handed off to a LD carrier in ERROR, and being BILLED by that carrier! :-( I seem to remember reading in this Digest that Bell Atlantic was having similar mis-translations and mis-routings in eastern PA, as they were phasing-in mandatory (straight) 10-D local dialing for the overlays of 610 with 424, and 215 with 267. "Permissive" 1+10D dialing for LOCAL - SHOULD have been "kept" by Bell Atlantic (or the LEC), but in a few cases, such calls were being routed over to AND BILLED AS TOLL BY, the customer's primary LD/toll carrier! UNfortunately, translations for numbering/dialing to switching and routing -- is getting more and more complex and involved! :-( You'd EXPECT it to get simpler as the numbering/dialing plan hopefully becomes more generic. But a lot of the better trained techs doing translations inputting (usually old "Bell-heads" who've been with telco or AT&T since pre-1984) are being transferred to other departments or retiring or getting laid-off. The new crowd frequently doesn't comprehend all of the ideosynchrosies of the inter-related aspects of numbering/dialing, translations, switching/routing, signaling, billing, etc. Or else they really don't "care" about proper loading of such dialing strings or codes into the switch if the code is for something outside of their service area. Just look at how long it takes some LECs to load new NPA codes into originating c.o.switch translations! :-( Also adding to the complexity is the SHEER VOLUME of new codes and dialing procedures to be loaded into translations along with new switching and routing configurations and call-processing methods. Every month there is at least one new NPA in the NANP taking effect in permissive dialing or overlay "officially" taking effect. August 1999, this month, is an exception with _NO_ new NPAs taking effect! Unfortunately, if the carrier picking up the long-distance charges on a mis-translated / mis-routed local call permissively dialed as 1+ten-digits doesn't bill you through your local telco's monthly bill, you might have more difficulty in getting a credit. But even if the LD carrier bills you via a section of your LEC's monthly bill, many LECs don't want to "tamper" with charges from a LD carrier. You will be told to contact that LD company for credit. Also, EVEN THOUGH THOSE CALLS ARE _LOCAL_ _LOCAL_ _LOCAL_, the LEC and the LD-Carrier will _probably_ tell you that you placed the call with a 101-XXXX+ code before dialing 1+10D, or that "you shouldn't be dialing those local calls as 1+10D" ... :-( HOPEFULLY, going up the ladder of supervisors, and following up with regulatory will resolve such problems when they occur. Of course that all takes time and effort ... MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 15:18:31 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California In article , Coredump wrote: > Beware. In some areas, 1+10d is automaticaly handed off to your LD > provider regardless if it's local or not. Check your LD bill :-). Name one. There were some old switches that did this, but you'd be very hard pressed to find any in any town with over 1,000 population. In article , Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: > At 03:30 AM 8/3/1999 -0400, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: >> In some states, including CA, NJ, and NY, 1+10 works everywhere. > I beg to disagree (in reference to NY). I live in the 914 area code > and if I attempt to dial 1+914-XXX-XXXX I get an intercept saying to > not dial the 1+914 (it does not actually SAY this but that is the > meaning). The ONLY place in NYS that I KNOW that 1+AC1+XXX-XXXX works > if you are in AC1 is NYC (where both permissive 10D and 1+10D is > allowed due to the new overlay to 212 last month). Yes, New York has the most asinine rules of any place, even worse than places like Texas. In many parts of New York, you MUST NOT dial 1+ if the call is in the same area code, EVEN IF it is a toll call. For instance, there are toll calls in 914 that must be dialed only as 7D. For a variety of reasons, it is impossible to mandate toll alerting in the entire U.S. However, there is no reason for any part of the U.S. to disallow dialing 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX for any direct-dialed call, local or toll, same or different area code. ------------------------------ From: Dave O'Shea Subject: Re: Local Calls Handled by LD Carrier? Organization: snaip.net Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 21:45:00 GMT Bob Goudreau wrote in message: >> Beware. In some areas, 1+10d is automaticaly handed off to your LD >> provider regardless if it's local or not. Check your LD bill :-). > Specifically, which telcos in which areas do this? And is there > any part of the country in which such an abuse by the LEC wouldn't > violate some sort of tariff? Right here in Houston ("Land of Confusing Overlays!") it's necessary to dial 10+1 to reach some outlying parts of the metro area, and all of those calls are serviced by SWBell, at roughly the same per-minute rate that I pay to call the UK. ------------------------------ From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: 3 Aug 1999 18:46:59 -0400 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA eflorack@my-deja.com (Eric Florack) writes: > In article , jonesm2@rpi.edu > (Michael David Jones) wrote: >> Eric Florack writes: >>>>> I think this is an issue of (1) personal privacy and (2) illegal >>>>> search and seizure. I think people should have a reasonable >>>>> expectation that their communications will be kept confidential >>>>> per the law. >>>> Interestingly enough, I live in a state where as long as *one* party >>>> knows the conversation is being taped, that's fine. No laws are being >>>> broken. >>> Quite correct. There's more here, too; >>> The DA is a Democrat, as is the Lt. Gov. in that state, who apparently >>> informed her close friend, Hillary Clinton of the charges being filed >>> well in advance of their being filed. There is much to suggest this is >>> a political reprisal, and little else. >> Except, of course, for the (proud) public admission of guilt on the >> part of the criminal. Whether you like the Clintons or not, I think >> it's preposterous to look at what happened as a result of this illegal >> action and the harm (deserved or not) it caused to several parties and >> say that the prosecution is political. > Well, one way to measure tha is to look at when the law was enforced > previously, and under what conditions. The conditions being set here > are very suspect, indeed. They are? I don't really recall any comparable cases. The law generally looks unfavorably on people who flaunt their crimes, however. >>> IMHO, this case will be tossed out of court. >>> Even if it was not dismissed, it will certainly not be the test case >>> for taping phone conversations that many see it as; there's far too >>> much in the way of self-defense on the part of Tripp, and far too much >>> in the way of vengeance on the part of the Clintons and their supporters >>> to allow this to be the clean-cut ruling that would establish communi- >>> cations law. >> What's to establish? I have known for a long time that the laws on >> legality of taping phone conversations varied from state to state, and >> thought that they were long-standing, well-established laws in most >> cases. The simple ruling in this case is that Linda Tripp broke an >> established, non-controversial law. I've heard several people talk >> about "self defense", as though Tripp were somehow going to be the >> target of some sinister Clinton plot if she hadn't made the tapes, but >> I really don't understand that. She was completely obscure until the >> tapes surfaced. Until she made a celebrity of herself with the tapes, >> most people had no idea who she was or that she had any connection to >> the entire affair (so to speak). > Not quite. She was only obsure insofar as the press wanted her to be; This is quite possibly the most fascinating sentence that I've read on Usenet in a long time. One is generally *famous* because the press wants you to be; hiding people is not one of their strengths. > The problem the Clintons had with her was and is, her claims ... claims > which the tapes went a long way to confirm. Charges against the Clinton > have never been sparse. What has been sparse is confirmation, for > reasons we won't get into here. These tapes provided that confirmation. > And this is nothing more than payback for being a whistleblower. If > this reprisal goes unchallanged, you might as well forget about any > protection for whistle blowers. Confirmation of *what*? It's not like Tripp had tapes of Clinton selling secrets to the Chinese. She didn't even have tapes of Clinton himself doing *anything*. What she had were tapes of someone else talking about doing things of dubious legality with Clinton. If there's anything on the Tripp tapes that actually confirmed anything criminal (which is the only context in which I can place the terms "confirmation" and "whistleblower"), I can't recall it. Providing embarrassing (not to mention salacious) material to the press about someone with whom you disagree politically is "muckraking", not "whistleblowing". I'm not saying this in any way to defend Clinton, but it's not like we're talking about the Pentagon Papers here. It's entirely possible to object to Bill Clinton without excusing the excesses of others who disagree with him. Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it. ------------------------------ From: adamf@columbus.rr.com (Adam Frix) Subject: Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 18:39:45 -0400 Organization: Road Runner Columbus In article , Chris Wysocki wrote: > I wrote back to explain why having a Billed Number Screening database > would be a good idea as it would prevent the hassle of disputed bills. > He told me to get lost and stop wasting his time, and even threatened > me with legal action if I wrote to him again! I can't tell you how often I hear the very same "threat" from people around the Usenet. They post with their email addresses, then when replies THAT THEY DON'T LIKE come back to them in email, they threaten all sorts of legal and whatever other action they can think of because of "spam" or "abusing my email" or whatever. Is this a trend? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know if you would call it a 'trend' or not; I know that the 'threat' is a very common one; it goes all the way back to at least the early 1980's when email was handled between BBS machines and the earliest days of the Internet. Long time readers here will recall back about 1990 or so, maybe 1989 when many large corporations were first starting to hook into the internet for email purposes an article appeared in this Digest about a complaint a number of people had with a certain company. An email address was posted for people to send their complaints to the presi- dent of the company, and apparently at least a few people did write, because instead of getting the problem corrected, instead of getting back 'thank you for writing but we do not intend to change anything' type letters, instead of getting back even an autoreply or nothing at all, we got back a letter from a woman I shall call Miss Prissy, who was the secretary to the president of the company. Miss Prissy warned us in a haughty way that we were never again to write to that email address. Referring to it as 'illegal email' she threatened that the company lawyer would deal sternly with any of us who again dared to contact the company. I am not certain if any netizen correspondence to the president of the company ever actually reached him or not. Chances are Miss Prissy destroyed it to protect her boss' virgin eyes from seeing it and (most likely) his virgin brain from having to think about whatever was discussed. We do not want the boss finding out how his underlings are getting the company all screwed up now do we? What I thought was funny about it thought was a reader of this Digest in those days -- maybe still, who knows? -- sent me a letter I printed here saying in essence that 'we had better not send email to the companies who were (in those days, by the droves) starting to get email connections to the net ...' ...'they may decide it is too much of a hassle and not connect with us.' Bear in mind of course in those late 1980's - early 1990's times this net was mostly EDUcational with a limited number of amateur computerists, such as myself, and many of you who were around in those days. To see a company with email on the net was rather rare. No, nothing new about email threats. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rkpatt758@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Call Waiting Signal Variations Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 22:49:46 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. That's why my modem got disconnected with call waiting until I moved to another part of town with a different area code and prefix. Oh well ...(any alternatives ?) Thanks for your response. >> Are call waiting signals different between carriers or even within >> different areacodes/exchanges/prefixes of the same carrier? ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 18:56:03 EDT Subject: Re: Special Report: Can You Trust AT&T Wireless PCS Text Msg? > But of even greater concern is the fact that text messages submitted > to ATTWS via their e-mail interface, at least for delivery to phones > in the Los Angeles area (I don't have info about other areas at this > time -- it might well be a nationwide issue) can frequently simply > "vanish" after delivery to the ATTWS e-mail gateway. Such "vanished" > messages are never delivered to the phone user, nor is any indication > of a problem ever received by the original sender of the message. We've also had problems with pages sent through the dialup interface being lost or delayed for long periods. ------------------------------ From: Don Seeley Subject: Re: Would Uncle Sam Like to Spy on You? Date: 3 Aug 1999 21:07:43 GMT Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server mactani wrote: > Question: How much can company network manager look into individual > PCs connected to the company LAN? Is there any software available to > keep out nosy folks out of my PC? As deep as the company authorizes someone to look into *their* machine which you are only borrowing to do the work they have authorized you to do. If you are concerned about dialing in (RAS) from home, use a "clean" machine just for that purpose. Actively blocking the sysadmin is more likely to arouse suspicion. If you are concerned about content on the local drive being viewed without your knowledge, use a file encryption tool and wipe your swap, temp and cache files regularly, from a DOS boot disk (assuming a Wintel PC). The caveat being, if you are doing something that requires being *that* sneaky, you probably shouldn't be doing it at work. :) Don Seeley http://www.enteract.com/~dschi/index2.html dschi@nospam-enteract.com ------------------------------ From: Kevin DeMartino Subject: Re: Real Competition in the Local Loop Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:24:49 -0400 In Vol. 19 #269, marten@landstrom.pp.se wrote: > I'd like to know how many Americans that do have the real choice > between two or more LECs; as far as I know the old LECs are still the > only available choice for residential customers. It appears that the cable TV companies, rather than the CLECs, are starting to provide real competition for the LECs. MediaOne is offering local phone service with great fanfare. AT&T has joined with cable companies and is investing bundles in infrastructure for the local loop. Unlike most CLECs, cable companies have their own transmission lines in the local loop, which run by most households (90% ?) in the U.S. In addition to video, cable systems can support voice and Internet access. Thus, one stop shopping for communication services is a possibility. However, the competition can cut both ways. Video services, in addition to voice and Internet access, can be provided over telephone lines. With asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) techniques, limited video services can be supported over most twisted pair access lines in the U.S. Video over telephone lines using ADSL is not yet a major threat to cable TV. However, telephone lines can be competitive with cable for video-on-demand. Encouraging this competition, would be more productive than regulating cable rates. The competition between the cable companies and the telcos may follow different scenarios in different parts of the country, and the local loop networks that evolve may vary significantly from region to region. This situation would seem to be preferable to a top down solution imposed by some consortium, or worse, by the government. Kevin DeMartino Dynamics Research Corporation ------------------------------ From: Tom O'Connell Subject: Map of Mexico Zones / Bands Organization: Salestar Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:16:10 -0700 Many carriers rate calls to Mexico depending on the band to which the call is placed. There are eight bands. I'm interested in getting my hands on a map of Mexico that delineates these eight bands (or zones.) Anyone know where this might be available? Thanks, Tom ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #276 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Aug 4 13:28:12 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA15702; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:28:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:28:12 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908041728.NAA15702@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #277 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Aug 99 13:28:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 277 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Local Calls Handled by LD Carrier? (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Special Report: Can You Trust AT&T Wireless PCS Text Msg? (J.F. Mezei) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Matt Ackeret) Channelized DS3 (Joe Yang) Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging (Adam Frix) Wireless Speeds Ahead (Monty Solomon) Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client (Brett Frankenberger) Lawyers and Blustersuch (B.A. Middleton) Re: Local Calls Handled by LD Carrier? (Linc Madison) Re: Map of Mexico Zones / Bands (Linc Madison) Making "Real Time" FOIP Services A Reality (krish_iyer) Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in Calif (Jack Dominey) Last Laugh! Creative New Accounting Method (Andrew Emmerson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 21:02:15 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: Local Calls Handled by LD Carrier? Others wrote: >>> Beware. In some areas, 1+10d is automaticaly handed off to your LD >>> provider regardless if it's local or not. Check your LD bill :-). >> Specifically, which telcos in which areas do this? And is there >> any part of the country in which such an abuse by the LEC wouldn't >> violate some sort of tariff? and Dave O'Shea (doshea@slategroup.com) replied: > Right here in Houston ("Land of Confusing Overlays!") it's necessary to > dial 10+1 to reach some outlying parts of the metro area, and all of > those calls are serviced by SWBell, at roughly the same per-minute rate > that I pay to call the UK. First, I assume that your "10+1" reference is a typo -- and that you probably meant "1+10" digits. Second, these calls handled by SWBell within outlying parts of the metro area, and within one of the Houston metro area's three inter-overlaid NPAs (832, 281, 713) are most likely _NOT_ local "free" calls - and probably NEVER WERE. JUST because SWBell handles them does _NOT_ "make" them "local" or "free". These are STILL TOLL CALLS with-IN your "LATA". Third, you say that the rates are about as much as you would pay to call the UK. WELL, then from what many LD carriers now charge to call the UK (depending on what discount plan you are on), your toll calls within your LATA and your calls to the UK would be _CHEAPER_ than inTRA-state Texas but out-of-LATA (toll, long distance) calls! Many carriers now offer plans to call the UK at 10-cents or 12-cents a minute! And I know that AT&T's discount plan for AT&T-handled calls within TX (including _AT&T_ handled inTRA-LATA) are FIFTEEN cents a minute! Now, if you are paying what are now considered to be rather high rates to call the UK as well as SWBell inTRA-LATA TOLL calls, you could get roughly fifteen cents/min from a plan with AT&T for such calls, by either CHOOSING AT&T as your primary carrier for "local/toll" calling (inTRA-LATA toll) - that is if Texas has started allowing customers to choose a primary inTRA-LATA toll carrier other than the incumbent LEC's toll service - as well as getting on their inTRA-state discount plans, or else using the right "dial-around" 101-XXXX+ codes for such inTRA-LATA toll calls. Any other "decent" LD carrier can be chosen or dialed (with a previously set up account) instead of AT&T -- I'm only using them as an example. Also, note that for the "dial-around" CAC (Carrier Access Code), I'm using the PROPER generic format of 101-XXXX+, and _NOT_ the INcorrect "ten-ten" 10-10-XXX format. There already HAVE been 101-5XXX+ and 101-6XXX+ codes in use since 1994 or maybe even earlier. It is only that the previously existing 10-XXX+ codes evolved into 101-0XXX+, and the cheezy marketing people came up with "ten-ten". Finally, what's confusing about your dialing procedures and about your overlays? If a call is TOLL, you know you HAVE to dial 1+ before the full ten-digit number. If you are calling something that you EXPECT to be local - i.e. no "extra toll charges", you need only dial "straight" ten-digits. IF the desired dialed number, expecting it to be local, turns out to have TOLL charges, and you only dialed "straight" ten-digits, SWBell won't complete the call! Even if the desired destination number also happens to be in area code 832 or 713 or 281. Such numbers are TOLL with-IN your LATA, as mentioned above. Houston had a lot of confusing when 281 became a split off of 713 instead of the original overlay, back in 1996. Now, any FURTHER area code relief for the Houston metro area will mean _NOBODY_ in the Houston metro area will _EVER_ have to change their NPA-NXX part of their phone number EVER again! That's the BENEFIT of what you claim is a "confusing" overlay! MJC ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: Special Report: Can You Trust AT&T Wireless PCS Text Messaging? Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 22:00:42 -0400 Lauren Weinstein wrote: > AT&T Wireless (ATTWS) has, as you might expect, one of the most > extensive SMS implementations. They provide three interfaces to the > service: I would beg to differ. GSM has the most extensive SMS implementations. For one thing, most GSM providers have interconnected SMS systems which means that you can send an SMS to someone in another country, and when you roam to another country, inserting your SIM card in any GSM phone will result in your receiving your SMS messages. Most importantly, GSM allows the SENDING of SMS messages from the phone. Many GSM providers also provide an email interface for outbound SMS messages (send an SMS to a special SMS number and start your SMS message with the email address of the destination recipient). Bi-directional SMS systems such as GSM's allow "transactional" applications. Banking is on the horizon and already, one can request stock quotes, weather information for a city and there was even a directory assistance application on a GSM system. Those digital systems lacking bi-directional SMS capability will require users to have laptops to connect to a host VIA the phone (data connection) to have transactional capability. GSM-SMS on the other hand allows one to send a SMS message without incuring airtime. And there are GSM applications that allow a computer to send/receive SMS messages. There are also some "ringtone" servers out there where from a Nokia GSM phone, one can send an SMS to an SMSC to request that a ringtone be sent back. ------------------------------ From: mattack@area.com (Matt Ackeret) Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: 3 Aug 1999 17:47:29 -0700 Organization: Area Systems in Mountain View, CA - http://www.area.com In article , Eric Florack wrote: > And this is nothing more than payback for being a whistleblower. If > this replrisal goes unchallanged, you might as well forget about any > protection for whistle blowers. That's ridiculous. There's nothing illegal that the tapes uncovered. When adultery becomes illegal, a lot of the Republicans better go running for cover, since they seem to be just as "good" at it as Clinton is. (Remember the "youthful indiscretion" of the 40 year old!) mattack@area.com ------------------------------ From: Joe Yang Subject: Channelized DS3 Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:51:22 -0700 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Could anybody tell me where can I find any information about T3? What is the "Channelized DS3" meaning? Joe Yang ------------------------------ From: adamf@columbus.rr.com (Adam Frix) Subject: Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 21:10:10 -0400 Organization: Road Runner Columbus > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know if you would call it a > 'trend' or not; I know that the 'threat' is a very common one; it > goes all the way back to at least the early 1980's when email was > handled between BBS machines and the earliest days of the Internet. --snip-- > Miss Prissy warned us in a haughty way that we were never again to > write to that email address. Referring to it as 'illegal email' she > threatened that the company lawyer would deal sternly with any of > us who again dared to contact the company. I am not certain if any > netizen correspondence to the president of the company ever actually > reached him or not. Chances are Miss Prissy destroyed it to protect > her boss' virgin eyes from seeing it and (most likely) his virgin > brain from having to think about whatever was discussed. Makes me think of Dilbert, where the PHB wanted his secretary to "type up all of my incoming voice mail" and "print out all of my e-mail every day so I don't have to log onto the network". (And then there was the one where he wanted Dilbert to print him out a copy of the Internet, because he wanted to browse ...) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 23:46:40 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Wireless Speeds Ahead And IT managers are fast learning that wireless technology isn't just for voice anymore By Matt Hicks, PC Week Online August 2, 1999 9:00 AM ET http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,410545,00.html Telecom providers tap wireless Net access for local loop By Matt Hicks, PC Week Online August 2, 1999 9:00 AM ET http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/jumps/0,4270,410554,00.html ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client Date: 4 Aug 1999 00:48:01 GMT Organization: rbfnet In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > So Paul Vixie told NSI if they were seemingly unable or unwilling to > get their computers and users under control and stop sending out > spam, that other sysadmins would get the problem under control for > them. Either NSI stops the spam, or others will stop it for them. > Now comes Jonathan Emery, hotshot lawyer. Where exactly he finds a > legal basis for his arguments, I do not know. The Black Hole list > is a voluntary mutual effort by sysadmins and ISPs who say to the > offenders on the list, 'we do not want to hear any more from you.' Well, I'm often felt that the black-listee's had a valid legal argument. I'm not sure NSI could use this argument -- they don't compete with ISPs -- but below is my explanation of why I think the blackhole list is contrary to federal anti-trust law, and why any ISP that is blackhole'd would have standing to sue for triple damages: (1) Spam is legal. I don't like spam. You don't like spam. Most of my friends don't like spam. Most of your friends probably don't like spam. But sending, relaying, etc., spam is completely legal. (AFAIK, none of the court orders against spammers have related to spamming per se. They have all related to things like forged From: addresses.) (2) ISPs that relay spam, knowingly or unknowingly, are engaging in a legal business activity. (3) Such ISPs are competitors to other ISPs. (4) It is a violation of federal anti-trust law for a group of competitors to band together (act in concert) to force a competitor out of business (or to harm said competitor). It seems to me that, by subscribing to the RBL, a group of competitors (ISPs who subscribe to the RBL) are acting in concert to harm some of their competitors (ISPs who relay Spam.) So, although I agree with your specific point that NSI has no came against the MAPS RBL (MAPS is merely compiling a list of ISPs that send or relay spam. Assuming they don't act recklessly or negligently in compiling this list -- and there is no evidence that they are -- they are essentially just reporting the news.) I also doubt NSI has a case, at least under anti-trust law, against individual ISPs, because they don't compete with NSI. (Maybe there's another law under which they have standing.) However, I do not agree with your point that the ISPs who use the RBL are within their legal rights. I know there are lawyers who read this Digest ... I'd be interested in their take on this matter ... (BTW, I've heard the argument that it's OK because blocking spam has a primary purpose of protecting the ISPs systems from damage. This would be a matter for a judge and jury to decide after hearing from expert witnesses, but, at least for many ISPs that subscribe, they would have a very tough time showing that spam was harming their systems.) > What I am going to do is route NSI to my personal bit bucket > starting today. You might like to do the same. Of course, NSI is only spamming people who own domains. People who own domains also need to receive mail from NSI regarding renewals, etc. So blackhole NSI at your own risk ... you better have complete faith in snail-mail invoice delivery, or know when your domains expire, because if you blackhole NSI, you'll miss all their E-Mail notifications. -- Brett ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 00:02:41 -0400 From: B.A. Middleton Subject: lawyers and Blustersuch As one of the aforementioned species (lawyer) I particularly enjoy when another of the species decides to bellow loudly and draw unnecessary attention. The sad truth of the matter is that, in this country, nearly anyone can sue nearly anyone else at any time for anything. There are exceptions and limitations, most notably for political officials, public servants, and health insurance companies ;-> I take particular umbrage at this attorney's use of 'Amazon.com' as an entity that would take legal action if it's "communications" to "customers" were blocked. My personal experience with Amazon.com was very brief. I ordered several difficult to locate books in @1996 or 97. Before the books arrived, I was the unwitting recipient of several unrequested, unsolicited "informational" e-mail messages. I notified Amazon.com to remove me forever from any user or customer lists and informed them that the reason for my refusal to patronize their business in the future, was due to their intrusive unsolicited e-mail! (targeted spam!) Perhaps I missed a recent Supreme Court ruling during our East Coast heat wave ... did they rule we must accept all the advergarbage tossed at us at all times? bam!bam! bamesq@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 22:37:14 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Local Calls Handled by LD Carrier? In article , Dave O'Shea wrote: > Right here in Houston ("Land of Confusing Overlays!") it's necessary to dial > 10+1 to reach some outlying parts of the metro area, and all of those calls > are serviced by SWBell, at roughly the same per-minute rate that I pay to > call the UK. You must have a discount plan from SWBell. Either that, or you're paying too much to call the UK!! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 22:43:32 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Map of Mexico Zones / Bands In article , Tom O'Connell wrote: > Many carriers rate calls to Mexico depending on the band to which the > call is placed. There are eight bands. I'm interested in getting my > hands on a map of Mexico that delineates these eight bands (or zones.) > Anyone know where this might be available? Telco has a nice chart of which cities and area codes are in which bands on their web site, I used to recommend their services, as they offer good quality connections and reasonable rates, but since they started billing me as much as 6,000% of what they were required to contribute to the USF, I can no longer recommend them. However, I certainly have no objection to anyone using their web site to determine what another company would charge for a call to Mexico. ------------------------------ From: krish_iyer Subject: Making "Real Time" FOIP Services A Reality Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 11:23:26 GMT Organization: Talkway, Inc. Hi Friends, Till now, there were three fundamental factors which were proving to be the "technological barriers" in the implementation of Real Time Fax over IP services. The first and foremost was the non availability of a standard protocol which would enable IP based fax machines and service providers everywhere to interoperate with one another as one global fax network. The second factor was the fundamental requirement of 'controlled networks' (as available in developed countries like USA and UK) for implementing Real Time Fax over IP services. The third factor was the requirement of controlled bandwidth (at least 64 kbps) to make Real Time Fax transmission a possibility. One tool crucial to building the new world of real time fax over IP is the emerging International Telecommunications Union (ITU) T.38 standard for real time fax over IP, which makes it possible for fax machines from different vendors to talk to talk to each other over IP networks. With Computer Telephony vendors making huge investments in incorporating better architecture and standard protocols across their product line and fax service providers building powerful private global IP networks, the issue of 'controlled networks' and 'bandwidth requirements' will not necessarily hamper service providers from providing reliable services even in regions with weak telecommunications infrastructure. Strategic partnership between Global Telecom Carrier companies and fax service providers has only helped to address the infrastructure issue. The above initiatives augurs well for the FOIP industry as well as the individual and corporate customers who view Fax over IP services as the only solutions to drastically cut down their ever mounting fax bills. Kaushik Kaushik@bcmfax.net Integrated Solutions for Internet Faxing http://www.bcmfax.net ------------------------------ From: look@my.sig (Jack Dominey) Subject: Re: How to Increase Public Acceptance of Overlays in California Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 12:38:05 GMT Organization: The Maynard G. Krebs Memorial Work(!?)station Reply-To: look@my.sig In , Linc Madison wrote: > For a variety of reasons, it is impossible to mandate toll alerting in > the entire U.S. However, there is no reason for any part of the U.S. > to disallow dialing 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX for any direct-dialed call, local or > toll, same or different area code. I agree, but BellSouth doesn't. Here in metro Atlanta, 10D is mandatory for all local calls in the geographic area codes of 404 and 770 (both overlaid by 678). 1+10D is prohibited. I assume this is an attempt (IMO misguided) to preserve 1+ as a 'toll alert'. Jack Dominey "Apparently I'm insane. domineys(at)mindspring.com But I'm one of the happy kinds!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:14 +0100 From: midshires@cix.co.uk (Andrew Emmerson) Subject: Last Laugh! Creative New Accounting Method Reply-To: midshires@cix.co.uk BRUSSELS (1st June 1999)-At a recent meeting of the European Telecom Manufacturers' Trade Group it was reported that ETMTG accounts had a deficit of 2,000 French francs. One member stood up and said, "I vote we donate half of it to the Red Cross and the other 1,000 to Amnesty International." Bizarrely, this motion was carried 23 to 2. [reported in Comms Dealer, August 1999). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #277 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Aug 4 17:29:10 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA25232; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:29:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:29:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908042129.RAA25232@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #278 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Aug 99 17:29:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 278 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Press Needs to Encourage Discussion Problems With ICANN (Ronda Hauben) Int'l. Drivers Licenses, How About Int'l. Telephone Numbers? (John Stahl) Responsibility of Local Phone Providers (Kay Connor) Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging (Chris Wysocki) Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? (Chuck Forsberg) Re: Local Calls Handled by LD Carrier? (Bob Goudreau) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Herb Stein) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Richard Thomsen) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Scott Hurlbert) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Eric Florack) Re: Metcalfe's Law in Reverse (lowe@darlington.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Press Needs to Encourage Discussion Problems with ICANN Date: 4 Aug 1999 16:22:20 GMT Organization: Columbia University Reply-To: rh120@columbia.edu U.S. Press Needs to Allow Discussion of Problem Represented by Privatizing IANA and IETF Protocol Process Especially in column for alternative Viewpoints (Op Ed columns) The failure of the press to provide for the needed wideranging discussion of different views about what is happening with the Internet is a serious problem in the U.S. A while ago I wrote to a computer trade magazine that played an important role in reporting a story about some problems in making the cutover from NCP to TCP/IP and asked if they would be willing to run a story investigating what was happening with the creation of ICANN. The editor I wrote to told me that I couldn't do that, but that I could do an op -ed as long as it was limited to a certain number of words. At first I found it difficult to do the op ed as it is hard to write something short that is also specific. However, I finally did something and sent it to the editor. He referred me to the new op ed editor. The new op ed editor asked me to redo the Op Ed. I did. He said it would be accepted and run. Then two hours before he would be running it, he told me to rewrite it, cut the word count, and answer a number of questions he gave me. I did so. Got it back to him in the two hours. And he wrote me back that he wouldn't run it. I had thought that op ed's were to be alternative viewpoints. It became clear in accepting an invitation to do an op ed that that isn't true, at least in the experience with the computer trade magazine that I had. There is a serious need for a broad ranging public discussion about what is happening with the creation of ICANN and the U.S. government shift of control of enormous economic wealth and power over the Internet and its users to ICANN. But this requires an open press and the welcoming of a broad ranging set of diverse views. Following is the op ed I submitted before all the additional rigid requirements I was given. I thought it should circulate despite the censorship by the computer trade magazine. Ronda ronda@panix.com ====================== Is ICANN out of Control? On Thursday, July 22, 1999 the U.S. Congress held a hearing on the subject: Is ICANN out of control? It was held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Commerce Committee. ICANN or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers was created in Fall '98 as a private sector non profit corporation to take over ownership and control of certain essential functions of the Internet. These functions include among others, the IP numbers, the domain name system and root server system, and the protocols. It is good to see the beginnning effort by the U.S. Congress to investigate what has happened with the creation and manipulation behind the scenes of ICANN. Such investigation is needed. But it is only the beginning of the needed government effort to find a solution to the controversy over ICANN. The hearing was a very meager beginning of the kind of study and input needed by Congress to understand the problem that ICANN is creating for the Internet community. Unfortunately, with a very few exceptions, most of the witnesses were supporters of ICANN, or were involved in protecting their own stake in gettting a piece of the wealth from transferring essential functions of the Internet to the private sector. Some Congressmen asked good questions. The absence of witnesses who would be able to help to identify the problem, however, showed the pressure by those who feel they will benefit from the privatizing of what has functioned effectively as a public sector responsibility. ICANN was created in the midst of a controversy over what would be the appropriate institutional form for the ownership and control of these functions of the Internet that are crucial to its operation. At an ICANN meeting in January of 1999, a panelist from the Kennedy School of Government, Elaine Kamarck, explained that the nonprofit corporate form was inappropriate for the administration of functions like those that ICANN will be controlling. Since an individual's or company's economic life will be dependent on how these functions are administered, there needs to be the kind of safeguards that government has been created to provide. A nonprofit entity, even if it is a membership organization, does not have such safeguards for the kind of economic responsibility that ICANN is being set up to assume. The development of ICANN over the past seven months has indeed demonstrated that the nonprofit corporate form, the structural form of ICANN, does not have a means to provide internal safeguards to counteract the tremendous power to control the Internet and its users which is being vested in ICANN. Contrary to popular opinion, the Internet is not a "finished" entity. It is a complex system of humans, computers, and networks which makes communication possible among these diverse entities. Scientific and grassroots science expertise continue to be needed to identify the problems and to help to figure out the solutions for the Internet to continue to grow and flourish. A crucial aspect of the governance structure for the first 12 years of the life of the Internet had to do with being a part of the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) of the research agency in the U.S. Department of Defense known an ARPA or the Advanced Projects Research Agency. ARPA/IPTO was created to make it possible for computer scientists to support computer science research like that which gave birth to and made it possible to develop the Internet. This early institutional form made it possible for people of different nations to work together to build the Internet. How this was done needs to be understood and the lessons learned for designing the institutional form to support vital Internet functions today and for the future. The U.S. Congress needs to be willing to raise the real questions and to look for the answers wherever they are to be found. --------------- * URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/5106/1.html See also: URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/2837/1.html Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ronda, this has been a sticking point with me for a long time also, and I do not know what else to do except continue to warn people as best as I can about the changes in store for the Internet, and to stress repeatedly that the net of the future, the not too distant future, IMO, has no place at all for amateur computerists, not-for-profit web sites and similar. And although I do not mean this to offend in any way, you submit the above to a computer trade magazine, an avowed, unabashed for profit publication hoping like all the others to Make Money Fast on the net and expected them to print it. Ronda, and the rest of you for what I hope is the last time at least this week, **ICANN and its supporters, many of whom openly disdain anything to do with the 'Internet of the past' and have little or no appreciation of the things which have made the Internet the great place it is while still claiming to be 'spokespersons for the net', do not intend to let you, or me, or anyone else get in the way of the transition**. The goal is to make the net an exclusively commercial thing, owned and controlled by very large corporations with the space they do not need populated by a bunch of two-bit 'shopping malls' and other commercial web sites. Please meditate on this. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 10:46:23 From: John Stahl Subject: Int'l. Drivers Licenses, How About Int'l. Telephone Numbers? Just received an innocuous little spam email (you know, one of many we all receive each day), which seemed to trigger my imagination. The spam told me all about an International Driver's License I could obtain. The International Drivers License spam: INTERNATIONAL DRIVER'S LICENSE Need a new driver's license? Too many points or other trouble? Want a license that can never be suspended or revoked? Want ID for nightclubs or hotel check-in? Avoid tickets, fines, and mandatory driver's education. Protect your privacy, and hide your identity. The United Nations gave you the privilege to drive freely throughout the world! (Convention on International Road Traffic of September 19, 1949 & World Court Decision, The Hague, Netherlands, January 21, 1958) Take advantage of your rights. Order a valid International Driver's License that can never be suspended or revoked. Confidentiality assured. CALL NOW!!! 1-937-586-9313 I then started to imagine what the next such marketing spam will offer me: There will be someone with an email offer for an International Telephone Number which can be used any where in the world! Can't get a new "TELEPHONE" number because they are all used up? Can't make or receive any telephone calls? Then you can't use your: cell phone, PCS phone, GSM phone, Iridium phone, FAX machine, home wireline phone, business phone, pager 'phone', or any other 'phone' someone can invent for you? Contact International Phone Numbers, Inc., today - for your very own personal international "TELEPHONE" number!!! Maybe this will be here sooner than we think and this 'service' will be in high demand!!! John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecom/Data Consultant email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: Kay Connor Subject: Resposibility of Local Phone Providers Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:40:41 -0500 Organization: CONNOR MGMT & REAL ESTATE My question is: What contract does local phone provider US WEST have with a community they are doing business with? Namely their responsibility to the community for what? Our local phone company has been sold. In the interim and transition of the sale the service and repairs are not being done, in fact we have been told that if the service fails in our area (rural) it will not be fixed. We are on a Pairgain system and our understanding is that it is very old and parts are all but non existent. Could you tell me if there is some kind of good faith contract or a clause that states that the service provider acts in the best interest of the community. Is there such a legal responsibility or is it implied but not binding. I would appreciate any and all help. If you can direct me I would be grateful. Does the FCC have direct jurisdiction over the provider? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You did not mention if US West is the purchaser or seller of your existing telephone exchange. Am I correct that US West is purchasing it from an independent telephone company or perhaps a telephone cooperative organization which has owned it for many decades and is now closing down? Do you believe that the existing outside plant and/or central exchange is in imminent danger of mechanical failure because of its state of disrepair? Perhaps if you provide a bit more background information someone will be able to help you. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 12:49:55 -0400 From: Chris Wysocki Subject: Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging On Tue, 03 Aug 1999 14:22:45 -0400, Chris Wysocki wrote: > I did say in one of my e-mails to him that I would expose his > ridiculous responses in a report to TELECOM Digest. He seemed to > think that was quite funny. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you have copies of that email, would > you share them with us? PAT] As a general rule, I do not pass along private e-mail without permission. And, since this guy has already gotten hostile, I don't want to provoke him further. But, his basic point was, "we've never received a similar complaint or request during the past four and a half years running the service" and he would therefore not recognize the validity of my request. Then, in response to my statement about reporting to TELECOM Digest he wrote: "You're more than funny :-) Please let everybody know all over the world that our company was not willing to resolve a none existing problem." (Note to Pat, "none existing" is how he typed it.) So, now "everybody all over the world" knows that his company is not willing to recognize the legitimate concerns of a PBX owner. His audacity is astounding. Chris Wysocki Data Life Associates, Inc. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please do a favor for me however, and send the kind gentleman with the strange sense of humor copies of the various issues of the Digest in which remarks about his company have appeared. We owe him that courtesy I think, to let him see how the admins of telephone networks around the USA enjoyed reading his response. Oh, I almost forgot: didn't he threaten to sue you or get your email privileges revoked or something if you dared to correspond with him further? Perhaps others will choose to send him the pertinent copies of the Digest instead, with or without some comments of their own. He is going to have a lot of suing to do! PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Does Anyone on the West Coast Use Caller ID? From: caf@agora.rdrop.com (Chuck Forsberg) Date: 4 Aug 1999 12:31:42 -0500 Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com In article , Mike Van Pelt wrote: > ACR seems to have drastically cut down on the amount of phone-spam we > get. We only get the phone-spam from places that do not send CNID, > which is (I hope) a shrinking and soon to be vanishing subset of the > phone network. From what I see CNID on incoming long distance calls is on the way out. The last five incoming calls all show an ID of 0. Most were from legigitimate businesses, not telemarketers. Except for local calls Caller ID is nearly useless. Or is this some sort of snafu unique to GTE in the Washington County Oregon area???? Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX PP-ASEL/HP Skylane N2469R caf@omen.COM Omen Technology Inc The High Reliability Software www.omen.com Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, RZ, SZ, Pro-YAM, ZCOMM, GSZ, and DSZ TeleGodzilla BBS: 503-617-1698 FTP: ftp.cs.pdx.edu pub/zmodem POB 4681 Portland OR 97208 503-614-0430 FAX:503-629-0665 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:53:33 EDT From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Local Calls Handled by LD Carrier? Dave O'Shea wrote: >>> Beware. In some areas, 1+10d is automaticaly handed off to your LD >>> provider regardless if it's local or not. Check your LD bill :-). >> Specifically, which telcos in which areas do this? And is there >> any part of the country in which such an abuse by the LEC wouldn't >> violate some sort of tariff? > Right here in Houston ("Land of Confusing Overlays!") it's necessary > to dial 10+1 [sic] to reach some outlying parts of the metro area, and > all of those calls are serviced by SWBell, at roughly the same > per-minute rate that I pay to call the UK. But that's not at all what I asked about. Your case is that of your LEC (*not* your LD carrier) handling calls to points that are presumably within its monopoly local carriage zone, even though they are far enough away to be charged at "local toll" rates. Complain to your state PUC about the tariffs that prevent LD companies from competing with SWB in handling such calls and about the rates that SWB is allowed to charge for them. The alleged incidents which I asked about are completely different: calls to points within the LEC's lowest-cost local calling area (this means free for most of the US) which are being correctly handled by the LEC if dialed as 7D (or 10D if relevant) but which are being *incorrectly* handed off to an LD carrier if dialed as 1+10D. This is not supposed to happen; if it *does* happen, it is almost certainly evidence of an improperly programmed switch, as others have already noted. If anyone can identify any telco switches that currently misbehave thusly, we'll have some grist for the PUC complaint mill. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 16:17:17 GMT Organization: newsread.com ISP News Reading Service (http://www.newsread.com) I usually "step in it" when I get into these discussions, but what the heck. Thick skin and all that. 1+10 should always work. If there are still people out there that will optionally make a call depending on whether it is local, local toll or long distance toll, let them do the homework to avoid toll charges. We always seem to reduce everything in this country to the lowest common denominator to protect the mis/uninformed people. The simple fact is that it requires a modest amount of expertise to control ones toll bill and those without that expertise need to develop it. I don't hear too many 16-year olds complaining about having to develop the expertise to operate a motor vehicle. Costs sky-rocket when you misuse the vehicle - tickets, insurance, gas mileage, repair bills, etc. So what is the problem with developing the expertise to operate a telephone? Herb Stein The Herb Stein Group www.herbstein.com herb@herbstein.com 314 215-3584 ------------------------------ From: Richard Thomsen Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:34:03 -0600 Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping > Whether you like the Clintons or not, I think it's preposterous to > look at what happened as a result of this illegal action and the harm > (deserved or not) it caused to several parties and say that the > prosecution is political. I seem to remember some Democrats listening in and taping a telephone conversation of Newt Gingrinch, and they were not either side of the conversation. They also released the tapes to the press to be published. Of course, the Clinton's "Justice" department did not bother to indict anyone in that case. Richard Thomsen ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Scott Hurlbert Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 12:24:34 -0800 >> And this is nothing more than payback for being a whistleblower. If >> this replrisal goes unchallanged, you might as well forget about any >> protection for whistle blowers. > That's ridiculous. There's nothing illegal that the tapes uncovered. > When adultery becomes illegal, a lot of the Republicans better go running > for cover, since they seem to be just as "good" at it as Clinton is. > (Remember the "youthful indiscretion" of the 40 year old!) It is not ridiculous -- are you telling me that if she had discovered something illegal then the taping would have been alright? That's ridiculous. If she had discovered something illegal (which she actually did -- remember the talking points, can you spell obstruction? It doesn't matter what the President was doing, lying about it to the Grand Jury is a crime!) she should still be prosecuted for breaking the law, but so should the other offenders. First of all, the President absolutely committed perjury, the tapes make this clear. But they hardly ever prosecute perjury, just like they hardly ever prosecute recorded phone conversations. If you don't believe he committed perjury, then what was he impeached for? (You do remember that he was impeached don't you? -- They just chose not to remove him from office.) What you're saying is we let the President off because he's powerful, and now let's crucify Tripp because she's not! Good one ! Scott ------------------------------ From: Eric Florack Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:43:49 -0400 Organization: Free File Farm BBS > From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) >> Well, one way to measure tha is to look at when the law was enforced >> previously, and under what conditions. The conditions being set here >> are very suspect, indeed. > They are? I don't really recall any comparable cases. The law generally > looks unfavorably on people who flaunt their crimes, however. Well, OK, let's consider the lack of a trial involving the folks who taped a telephone conversation of Newt Gingrich a few years ago. That involved cellular traffic which is a FEDERAL statute, if I recall rightly. Oddly enough the DA in the case wa also a Democrat. What I'm suggesting here, is that this law is not one enforced as a matter of principle, but as a tool for retrobution. >> Not quite. She was only obsure insofar as the press wanted her to be; > This is quite possibly the most fascinating sentence that I've read on > Usenet in a long time. One is generally *famous* because the press > wants you to be; hiding people is not one of their strengths. That rather depends on how much of a story they sit on. >> The problem the Clintons had with her was and is, her claims ... claims >> which the tapes went a long way to confirm. Charges against the Clinton >> have never been sparse. What has been sparse is confirmation, for >> reasons we won't get into here. These tapes provided that confirmation. >> And this is nothing more than payback for being a whistleblower. If >> this reprisal goes unchallanged, you might as well forget about any >> protection for whistle blowers. > Confirmation of *what*? It's not like Tripp had tapes of Clinton > selling secrets to the Chinese. She didn't even have tapes of Clinton > himself doing *anything*. What she had were tapes of someone else > talking about doing things of dubious legality with Clinton. Which Clinton had been denying. That's the key. It exposed Clinton as a liar, as did her original charges. Which placed her in danger. Allow me to tie this back to the topic of Telecom, by asking the question: Can anyone in this great room of telecom minds, tell me when the last time this Maryland law was enforced? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 11:12:33 -0400 From: lowe Subject: Re: Metcalfe's Law in Reverse msimpson@uky.edu (Matt Simpson) wrote: > In article , Monty Solomon > wrote: >> Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, July 25, 1999: >> Metcalfe's Law in Reverse >> Current attempts to split the Web into many isolated mini-networks >> undermine the long-term potential of the Internet which depends on >> universal interconnection: >> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990725.html >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Whose bright idea was this, anyway? > I don't think anybody actually came up with a "bright idea" to "split > the Web". I think it's just that all the folks out there trying to > figure out how to maximize their own profit are creating that effect. > For example, Nielsen's article mentions the recent instant messaging > wars between Microsoft and AOL. I don't think either of those > companies wants to create their own subset of the net; as Nielsen > points out, that would be foolish. But by trying to find ways to lock > customers into something that makes money for them, they may > effectively split the Net even though that's not their intent. Coincidentally, there was a quote in Government Computer News (7/26/99, p 73) from a DOD policy type, one Phillip J. Loranger, whose hypothetical answer to securing DOD systems is to "separate .mil and make it an intranet, every last bit of it. I have trouble keeping people out because I have too many gateways and back doors." Not a bad business model, either; let the community grow to a critical mass, split into separate communities, and start collecting fees every time traffic crosses one of the newly created borders. Repeat as necessary. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There you have it! You are talking like a good board member of ICANN now, or one of the 'long time, senior members of the net who speaks for the net' who function as cheer leaders for ICANN. God bless you, sir ... or should I say shame on them for selling out the rest of us? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #278 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Aug 4 22:36:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA04600; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 22:36:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 22:36:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908050236.WAA04600@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #279 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Aug 99 22:36:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 279 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Web Site Service Outage (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client (Bob Peterson) Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client (Brad Ackerman) Re: Making "Real Time" FOIP Services A Reality (Jan Ceuleers) Re: Unmasking Anonymous Posters (billv@xnet.com) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (John David Galt) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (73115.1041@compuserve.com) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Mike Stockman) Re: Would Uncle Sam Like to Spy on You? (Bill Horne) Employment Opportunity: FORTE - Long Term Contract (ooss@inforamp.net) CPUC Says 'Yes" to 310/424 Overlay! (Linc Madison) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 21:31:16 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Web Site Service Outage For most of today (Wednesday) the telecom-digest.org web site has been inaccessible for reasons beyond my control. The problem seems to be with iecc.com which responds to calls to telecom-digest.org and I have been unable to reach iecc.com at all today; it appears the site is completely off line for some reason or another. This is also affecting internet-pioneers.org and internet-history.org which are also serviced at the same location. In the meantime, as an alternative, persons wishing the telecom site may use the underlying address which is: 'http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives' in every instance where 'http://telecom-digest.org' appears in your bookmarks at present. I hope whatever is causing this problem will be corrected soon. In the meantime, my apologies for the inconvenience and resulting confusion. PAT ------------------------------ From: peterson@mail.zgnews.com (Bob Peterson) Subject: Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client Organization: Zeitgeist Bulletin Board Reply-To: peterson@mail.zgnews.com Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:50:24 GMT brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) wrote: Pardon me if I substitute UBE (unsolicited bulk email) for "spam." The UBE, as well as UCE (unsolicited commercial email), terms seem to me much more precise. > In article , TELECOM Digest Editor > wrote: >> So Paul Vixie told NSI if they were seemingly unable or unwilling to >> get their computers and users under control and stop sending out >> spam, that other sysadmins would get the problem under control for >> them. Either NSI stops the spam, or others will stop it for them. >> Now comes Jonathan Emery, hotshot lawyer. Where exactly he finds a >> legal basis for his arguments, I do not know. The Black Hole list >> is a voluntary mutual effort by sysadmins and ISPs who say to the >> offenders on the list, 'we do not want to hear any more from you.' > Well, I'm often felt that the black-listee's had a valid legal > argument. I'm not sure NSI could use this argument -- they don't > compete with ISPs -- but below is my explanation of why I think the > blackhole list is contrary to federal anti-trust law, and why any ISP > that is blackhole'd would have standing to sue for triple damages: > (1) Spam is legal. I don't like spam. You don't like spam. Most of > my friends don't like spam. Most of your friends probably don't like > spam. But sending, relaying, etc., spam is completely legal. (AFAIK, > none of the court orders against spammers have related to spamming per > se. They have all related to things like forged From: addresses.) Certain actions commonly carried out by the senders of UBE are not legal, and have been found to constitute trespass. See, for example, the EarthLink Network vs. Cyber Promotions case (the Earthlink press release is at http://www.earthlink.net/about/pr/ELN_eats_spammers.html ) or the Parker v. C.N. Enterprises case (the final court document is at http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/flowers3.html ). In both those cases the _court_ decided that each UBE sender's actions amounted to trespass. The Earthlink press release says, "Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Diane Wayne found that Cyber Promotions' actions constituted a trespass upon EarthLink's computer resources ...", while the judgement in the Flowers case says in part, "The Defendants did not and do not have the legal right to use flowers.com as a return address for their mass mailing, and the Defendants unauthorized use of that address constituted a common law nuisance and trespass." So, one cannot assert that "... sending, relaying, etc., UBE is completely legal," given at least two different cases in which judges have ruled the action illegal. In particular, based on the Flowers case, forging a return address and, as a result, causing significant amounts of email (bounces or complaints) can amount to trespass. We all know how often senders of unsolicited email forge addresses, i.e., place in the headers domain names they don't have permission to use. Note that this case found that the UBE sender damanged not only the owners of the flowers.com domain name, but their ISP as well! In the Earthlink case, the Cyber Promotions spammer was found to be trespassing on Earthlink's property, namely the systems handling email. At http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/spam_law.html we find an interest- ing discussion of a Supreme Court decision affirming the constitution- ality of a law allowing a homeowner to require, via notice through the Post Office, removal of the homeowner's address from a mailer's address list. Taken broadly, that decision strongly suggests that the owner of an email box shares the same right, that is, the right to freedom from undesired communications. The Court ruled, in effect, that the right to privacy in one's home is superior to the right of a commercial entity to speak in that home. That same Web page cites a decision handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court affirming the constitutionality of the Federal laws prohibiting unsolicited FAXes, which again _may_ apply to unsolicited email. Given the above, especially the Earthlink case and the similar Compuserve case in which the act of sending volumes of email was found to be trespass, your initial assertion that unsolicited email is legal fails. And the Supreme and Circuit court decisions strongly suggest that private individuals have the right to not only refuse commercial speach, but to require the speaker (be the speech surface mail or FAX) to stop. I believe, therefore, that the operators of email facilities, be those facilities sendmail (or similar MTAs) at an ISP or an end user's mail tool (which might be sendmail, or a mail user agent such as Pegasus, Eudora, Exchange, etc.), has a right to reject unwanted messages. > (2) ISPs that relay spam, knowingly or unknowingly, are engaging in a > legal business activity. Yes, although this assertion says nothing about the legality of the sender's action. The decisions referenced above seem to suggest the sender who relays without permission is trespassing. >(3) Such ISPs are competitors to other ISPs. Yes. > (4) It is a violation of federal anti-trust law for a group of > competitors to band together (act in concert) to force a competitor out > of business (or to harm said competitor). > It seems to me that, by subscribing to the RBL, a group of competitors > (ISPs who subscribe to the RBL) are acting in concert to harm some of > their competitors (ISPs who relay Spam.) Did the group of competitors band together to force a competitor out of business, or to force a competitior to act in a legal manner? Is cooperating to prevent acts of trespass a violation of anti-trust law? > So, although I agree with your specific point that NSI has no came > against the MAPS RBL (MAPS is merely compiling a list of ISPs that send > or relay spam. Assuming they don't act recklessly or negligently in > compiling this list -- and there is no evidence that they are -- they > are essentially just reporting the news.) I also doubt NSI has a case, > at least under anti-trust law, against individual ISPs, because they > don't compete with NSI. (Maybe there's another law under which they > have standing.) However, I do not agree with your point that the > ISPs who use the RBL are within their legal rights. If one takes the position that most UBE is illegal either because of the trespass of relays or because of the unauthorized use of domain names, and observing that the RBL contains the addresses of computers repeatedly used, directly or indirectly, to support sending of UBE and thus supporting an illegal act, and also observing that removal from the RBL is accomplished by showing that support of UBE and, hence, illegal activity, has ended, then successful suit of the anti-trust accusation would seem to require the court to support an illegal activity. That seems unlikely. > I know there are lawyers who read this Digest ... I'd be interested in > their take on this matter ... > (BTW, I've heard the argument that it's OK because blocking spam has a > primary purpose of protecting the ISPs systems from damage. This would > be a matter for a judge and jury to decide after hearing from expert > witnesses, but, at least for many ISPs that subscribe, they would have > a very tough time showing that spam was harming their systems.) In the Flowers case the judge decided, and incorporated into the wording of the permanent injunction, that the UBE sender did, in fact, damage an ISP. The ISP showed that the email volume directly attrib- utable to the UBE caused service outages, which had an impact on their business, and required resources, such as employee time, to deal with both the outages and with complaints from offended recipients of the UBE. A judge has, in fact, ruled that UBE harmed an ISP, as well as the owner of a domain name used without authorization. >> What I am going to do is route NSI to my personal bit bucket >> starting today. You might like to do the same. > Of course, NSI is only spamming people who own domains. People who > own domains also need to receive mail from NSI regarding renewals, > etc. So blackhole NSI at your own risk ... you better have complete > faith in snail-mail invoice delivery, or know when your domains > expire, because if you blackhole NSI, you'll miss all their E-Mail > notifications. Bob Peterson BBS Dialup: 972 403 9406 to 53333 (V.34/X2/V.90) peterson@mail.zgnews.com BBS Telnet: bbs.zgnews.com Web: www.zgnews.com ------------------------------ From: bsa3@cornell.edu (Brad Ackerman) Subject: Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client Date: 04 Aug 1999 18:48:00 -0400 Organization: NERV GeoFront, Tokyo III brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) writes: > (1) Spam is legal. I don't like spam. You don't like spam. Most of > my friends don't like spam. Most of your friends probably don't like > spam. But sending, relaying, etc., spam is completely legal. (AFAIK, > none of the court orders against spammers have related to spamming per > se. They have all related to things like forged From: addresses.) Fortunately, this couldn't be further from the truth. 1. By definition, spam is both theft and chattel trespass. Both are illegal. Therefore, spam is illegal. 2. The courts agree with me. As an example, Compuserve v. Cyber Promotions specifically considers chattel trespass apart from forgery. 3. In practice, spammers almost universally insert fake headers, use a nonexistent From: address, et cetera. In the US, this offence is covered at the state level; someone spamming from or to New York would be guilty of forgery in the third degree and criminal possession of a forgery device (the spamware). See NY Consolidated Laws, title K, section 170, and note that it defines "written instrument" to include computer data. 4. Spammers often tend to hit government computers, and there are even occasional cases of relaying through MILnet machines. That's a federal offence, and it would be nice if the Solicitor General would press charges once in a while. [The utter lack of responsiveness on the part of government officials is the only reason why we need laws that explicitly ban spam.] > (2) ISPs that relay spam, knowingly or unknowingly, are engaging in a > legal business activity. 99.9% of such ISPs, if not 100%, are in breach of contracts with other ISPs which expressly prohibit spam, which is a civil offence. This applies to spammers as well, and I doubt that there exists any possible spammer and spammee combination where the spam doesn't go through a network with such a prohibition. Brad Ackerman N1MNB "...faced with the men and women who bring home bsa3@cornell.edu the pork, voters almost always re-elect them." http://skaro.pair.com/ -- _The Economist_, 31 Oct 1998 ------------------------------ From: Jan Ceuleers Subject: Re: Making "Real Time" FOIP Services A Reality Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 21:48:18 +0200 Organization: the Experimenter Board Reply-To: jan.ceuleers@computer.org krish_iyer wrote: > The third factor was the requirement of controlled bandwidth (at least > 64 kbps) to make Real Time Fax transmission a possibility. I don't know why you say that 64 kbit/s bandwidth is needed to support real-time fax transmission. There is no such requirement. 9600 bit/s is all that is needed. (Provided we understand each other as to what 'real-time' means. My interpretation is that it is _not_ a store-and-forward system. That is: the fax machines at either end talk T.30 to each other, albeit through intermediate devices that reduce the bandwidth requirements possibly at the cost of a small added delay that remains within the timing constraints of T.30). In order to show this, I can even point to an implementation that has existed for many years: the real-time fax relaying capabilities of DCME (digital circuit-multiplication equipment). These devices are normally deployed on long-haul transmission links. They are used to reduce the bandwidth requirements of the various types of traffic that they transport: voice is compressed; fax is demodulated, sent digitally at 9600 bit/s across the long-haul link and remodulated at the other end; while data is transmitted unchanged. The device is told by the switch what to do with each circuit (by means of the Q.50 protocol; available from the ITU for xxx CHF): whether the circuit has to be transmitted unchanged, or whether voice compression and fax demodulation can be attempted. Other implementations exist as well: many FRADs have similar capabil- ities. Jan ------------------------------ From: billv Subject: Re: Unmasking Anonymous Posters Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 12:58:41 -0500 Organization: XNet Information Systems, Inc. Monty Solomon wrote in message ... > Oscar S. Cisneros > 3:00 a.m. 29.Jul.99.PDT > A new legal trend has privacy advocates up in arms: Attorneys are > using subpoenas to unmask the identities of anonymous posters to > online discussion forums. And the people whose identities are at stake > rarely have the chance to fight back. One recalls the Steve Jackson Games case relating to email on a system. An important aspect, in judicial circles, had to do with the meaning of the term "intercept." EFF posed the question in terms of "buffering." In this case, it is like one wearing sunglasses or a thin mask to conceal their identity when making statements in public. So someone gets mad and gets infrared equipment sufficient to seel through the sunglasses or thin mask. Lawyers don't have unlimited subpoena powers. Subpoenas can only be issued once a case involving the information sought has been instituted in some court or another. A small delay for an ISP to provide the client with the information seems sensible and appropriate. That gives a chance for you to contact an attorney and have him enter a motion to quash the subpoena. billv@xnet.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One website (scambusters.com) even has a tutorial on line for corporations and other businesses teaching them how to go about identifying and harrassing people who post messages about them in newsgroups, etc. The tutorial shows how to use internet search engines, author posting profiles and similar records on the net itself to locate the 'offender' (meaning a person who has posted a message the corporation does not like). The tutorial then goes on to explain ways the corporate attorney can contact the person -- even though their address or phone number may not generally be known -- in order to harass or frighten the person into retracting or cancell- in their original posting, posting an apology to the corporation, etc. The tutorial explains that if the corporate attorney is able to obtain enough 'evidence' about the poster of the offensive message, the person can usually be 'convinced' or 'pursuaded' to remain permanently silent on the net, and how such incriminating evidence can be obtained through other net resources. The tutorial also explains how corporations can deal with 'offensive web sites' (that is, sites which expose some corporate crime or sleazy business practice, etc). As an example, it discusses attempts by US West to close down the web site http://usworst.com ; attempts which have apparently met with mixed results since the site is still operating but with very strict user identification and password requirements to prevent 'the wrong people at the corporation' from being able to see what is being said, in some cases by employees who are blowing whistles, etc. As the transition from an internet serving as the people's medium for the exchange of ideas and news into an advertising and sales medium for big business continues, I do not think the transition will be complete until large companies have learned how to use the internet to silence their critics in newsgroups and mailing lists. And as pointed out in the article above, more and more of them are indeed going to the time and effort to identify and punish people for their written words here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John_David_Galt@acm.org (John David Galt) Organization: Diogenes the Cynic Hot-Tubbing Society Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 19:59:04 GMT Matt Ackeret wrote: > In article , Eric Florack > wrote: >> And this is nothing more than payback for being a whistleblower. If >> this replrisal goes unchallanged, you might as well forget about any >> protection for whistle blowers. > That's ridiculous. There's nothing illegal that the tapes uncovered. > When adultery becomes illegal, a lot of the Republicans better go running > for cover, since they seem to be just as "good" at it as Clinton is. > (Remember the "youthful indiscretion" of the 40 year old!) That depends on whether you believe that Lewinsky got, or was promised, favorable treatment in return. If so, it was "sexual harassment" under the labor laws; and if most of the country truly feels that no wrong was done, then let's repeal that law. John David Galt ------------------------------ From: 73115.1041@compuserve.com Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 20:23:46 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com mattack@area.com (Matt Ackeret) wrote: > That's ridiculous. There's nothing illegal that the tapes uncovered. > When adultery becomes illegal, a lot of the Republicans better go running > for cover, since they seem to be just as "good" at it as Clinton is. Sigh. Would you please stop trotting out this red herring? The issue was never adultery, except in certain small minds. It was lying the the American people (recall the finger wagging "I did not have sex with THAT woman" comment?) as well as lying to a Grand Jury (recall the quibling over the definition of the word "is" ?) It was about an abuse of power, perceived or real, where a CEO was having an inappropriate relationship with an employee. ------------------------------ From: Mike Stockman Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 20:43:42 GMT Organization: @Home Network In article , Eric Florack wrote: > And this is nothing more than payback for being a whistleblower. If > this replrisal goes unchallanged, you might as well forget about any > protection for whistle blowers. Just because a would-be whistleblower suspects wrongdoing doesn't mean that person can break the law to prove it. Suppose I suspect my company is cheating on a government contract, a typical whistleblower situation. Do I then have free reign to break into the company's offices to gather evidence? Can I infiltrate the company president's home for proof? Not likely; if I break the law in my zeal to blow the whistle, I'll likely be prosecuted. Granted, those are more extreme examples than illegal wiretapping, as we have in the Tripp case, but the ends (whistleblowing) don't justify the means (knowingly breaking Maryland state law by recording without notification). This isn't a reprisal for whistleblowing. It's a very, very, very high profile case of someone breaking a state law that can't be swept under the rug because it would set a bad precedent and send a bad message (we won't prosecute crimes if it looks as if we're being partisan). And, by the way, it's high profile because Tripp made sure as many people as possible knew who she was and what she had done. She dug her own hole on this one. ----->Mike ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 14:13:58 -0400 From: Bill Horne Organization: Place Clue Here Subject: Re: Would Uncle Sam Like to Spy on You? Mactani, You're asking several questions at once, so let's step back for a second and look at a larger picture. The first, and most important step before buying any "security" software, is to ask yourself "what, exactly, am I trying to prevent?", because most organizations protect the wrong data, for the wrong reasons, and for much too long a time. That said, I'll answer your questions: mactani wrote: > Question: How much can company network manager[s] look into individual > PCs connected to the company LAN? For practical purposes, as much as they want. Most PC/LAN administrators insist on having a standard user environment, which will include provision for examining any individual PC to make sure the virus signatures are up to date, that there's no unlicensed software, etc. > Is there any software available to keep ... nosy folks out of my PC? Yes: but be careful what you ask for. Frankly, I distrust "one size fits all" encryption packages: they just provide a false (pun intended) sense of security, and may introduce more problems than they solve. Your users are going to require special training, your PC's throughput speed will degrade, and you'll still be subject to all the "social engineering" attacks that hackers know and love. In addition, the LAN support group may have to use a special procedure to back up your files -- if they don't disclaim responsibility for your machines entirely. The best solution to data security is not just a a piece of software: every company that has data to protect should go through a profess- ional assessment which evaluates ALL the costs you'll incur to conceal sensitive information. The right solution for YOUR company is going to be a combination of reality checks, legal requirements, competitive risk assessment, software, hardware, and common sense. HTH. http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/b/bhorne Bill Horne (remove ".nouce" from username to reply. Sorry.) ------------------------------ From: ooss@inforamp.net Subject: Employment Opportunity: FORTE - Long Term Contract Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 01:43:52 GMT FORTE - LONG TERM CONTRACT U.S. Job Description: Candidate will work as part of a software development team to perform design and development of a network management system. Skills: The ideal candidate will have the following: - 2+ years experience with Forte - Knowlege with network planning for telecommunications, and/or telphony systems would be highly desirable - some experience with Oracle forms and SQL Project Description: Applicant will be part of a team working on design and development of a network management system. FORTE will be used as part of the software development process. Misc.: Candidate must reside in Denver, CO Percent of Travel: 0% Duration of Job: 12 to 18 months Target Start Date: Sept 01, 1999 The Company: The Client is one of the largest IT Business Solutions and staffing services providers in the country with clients that range from Fortune 100 large, international companies to small and mid-size regional companies. THE Company offers career opportunities in a wide range of information technology areas including applications and internet development, networking, communications, user support, systems administration, project management, help desk, and distributed systems implementations. Diverse, challenging and rewarding career opportunities; competitive salaries and benefits; employee stock purchase program; 401k plan with company matching; career development and skills training. Please forward your resume in confidence to: Donald Lascelle ObjectSearch (416) 421-9244 Fax eMail preferred: Don@ObjectSearch.com (word.doc please) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 18:37:41 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: CPUC Says 'Yes' to 310/424 Overlay! In a press release dated August 3, 1999, the California Public Utilities Commission announced its decision to deny the petition by Assemblyman Wally Knox to halt the overlay of area code 310 with area code 424. The Commission will make a final ruling on September 2nd as to the exact effective date of the overlay; however, the staff recommendation is for October 16, 1999. The Commission restated its commitment to pursue number conservation efforts, including compulsory number pooling and service-specific overlays, and to reconsider the 1+10D requirement in the overlay area, as well as urging the FCC to allow mandatory pooling, wireless overlays, and continued 7D HNPA dialing in overlay areas. There are only about 60 unused prefixes in the 310 area code, currently being rationed at 6 per month, but there were 123 new requests for prefixes filed in May alone. You can expect to see a flood of actual customer assignments the day that 424 opens. The CPUC press release is available on their web site at Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom(at)LincMad(dot)com * North American Telephone Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: e-mail replies to the address in this sig will be read first! << ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #279 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 5 03:02:24 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA11699; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:02:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:02:24 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908050702.DAA11699@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #280 TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Aug 99 03:02:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 280 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Web Site Service Outage - No News to Report (TELECOM Digest Editor) The Internet: Then, Now and the Future (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging (Walter Dnes) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Michael David Jones) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Mark J. Cuccia) Crazy Proposals For 310 Area Code (Linc Madison) Re: Int'l. Drivers Licenses, How About Int'l. Telephone Numbers (Berlant) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 21:31:16 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Web Site Service Outage - No News to Report Organization: TELECOM Digest For most of yesterday (Wednesday) and at the present time (Thursday morning) the telecom-digest.org web site has been inaccessible for reasons beyond my control. The problem seems to be with iecc.com which responds to calls to telecom-digest.org and forwards those calls to LCS/MIT. I reported this last night but wanted to bring you up to date, however there is really nothing I can add at this point. I have been unable to reach iecc.com at all as of the present time; it appears the site is completely off line for some reason or another. This is also affecting internet-pioneers.org and internet-history.org which are also serviced at the same location. In the meantime, as an alternative, persons wishing the telecom site may use the underlying address which is: 'http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives' in every instance where 'http://telecom-digest.org' appears in your bookmarks at present. I hope whatever is causing this problem will be corrected soon. In the meantime, my apologies for the inconvenience and resulting confusion. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 02:29:20 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: The Internet: Then, Now and the Future About five and a half years ago here, I presented a report on changes the internet was undergoing at the time. A long time reader suggested we might like to review that report again and compare what was discussed then with the realities of the net today. That made sense to me; so here is the original report as it appeared in TELECOM Digest on Friday, March 31, 1995. PAT Date: Fri, 31 Mar 95 16:32:46 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9503312232.AA13252@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Changes to the Internet Going on Now Some thoughts on the massive changes the Internet has undergone over the past year or so and what lies ahead in the near future. I offer this special report submitted to the Digest for your consideration this weekend. PAT Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 21:05:04 -0600 From: breit@MR.Net (Kelly Breit) Subject: FYI> Hang onto your Packets: The Information Superhighway Heads to Valleyfair Thought you might find this article interesting. It was written by a regional ISP. ------------------------ Hang onto your Packets: The Information Superhighway heads to Valleyfair or Building a high performance computer system without reading the instructions. March 14, 1995 Preface: We are now in the midst of an immense transition on the Internet: The implementation of a new structure that has been in the making for several years. It was publicly mapped out two years ago with the release of a solicitation for proposals by the National Science Foundation (NSF solicitation 93-52) for four separate components of a new American national backbone architecture. The effects of this transition will be felt over the next few months and repercussions of it will evolve over the next few years. There is a potential for profound effects on the immediate needs and requirements of all MRNet members and subscribers: namely, stable and reliable Internet access. Because there may be difficulties and disruptions in these services and many periods of wild ups and downs (not all that different from a roller coaster ride at the nearby Valleyfair amusement park), I am writing to give you some background of how we arrived at this point and what might be expected in the near term. This description will be part history and part personal observation. It is not intended to be a comprehensive scholarly description, but rather my observations based on watching things over the past year or so and some recent events that have confirmed some of my fears and also my enthusiasms. Ancient and Recent History: The Internet, as we know it up to this point, has a long history (in technology industry terms), going back to research with the ARPAnet and introduction of the first early backbone to connect the NSF sponsored supercomputer centers in the mid 1980s. The core of the national Internet we are all familiar with had its start with the awarding of a 5-year cooperative agreement in 1987 to Merit, the Michigan state networking organization, and its partners MCI and IBM. This was to provide a national backbone network service with a bandwidth of 1.5Mbit/sec, and several access points around the country. Merit provided the expertise in managing a network service, including routing, IBM provided the core backbone routing equipment and MCI facilities were used for the trunk lines. This system was originally research and education based and mostly higher education institutions and research corporations were the users. A system of regional and state networks (like MRNet) grew up around this core and provided access to the user organizations in their areas. Most all of these regional networks were nonprofit public-service based organizations that had grown out of major research universities. The popularity of the system grew at a steady pace, primarily with financial help from the National Science Foundation, championed by the director of the NSF Division of Network Communications and Research Infrastructure (DNCRI) Steve Wolff. DNCRI provided funding to higher education and regional networks to help with connectivity. The system evolved into an orderly structure of a high-speed backbone (the NSFNET backbone service), mid-level networks and campus and corporate networks where the end-users were attached. Routing and management was centered at Merit and policies and procedures evolved for the smooth operation and growth of the system. As the popularity of such a system increased, some people saw it would be worthwhile to provide access to this system as a business opportunity. Entrepreneurs, with experience gained from regional network operation or similar networking services provision, established new businesses to get in on a new opportunity. The first generation of these were Performance Systems International (PSI) which was spawned out of NYSERNet in New York, and Alternet, a service of UUNet Technologies in Virginia, which had considerable experience in UUCP network services among others. In 1991, the Merit/IBM/MCI partnership was reformed with the creation of a new nonprofit corporation, Advanced Networks and Services (ANS) in which the founding partners entrusted the operation of the NSFNET backbone service. ANS formed a for-profit subsidiary, ANS CO+RE (Commercial + Research&Education) to offer full commercial traffic on its backbone. This was somewhat controversial, since ANS had the advantage of the NSF subsidy of about $10 million/year to operate the NSFNET backbone service. The concept of NSF-sponsored research/educational-only traffic and commercial traffic running on the same wires was a difficult concept for many to accept and ANS was considered to have an unfair competitive advantage over PSI, Alternet and now Sprint (who was also entering into the commercial backbone service). This resulted in much discussion on several mailing lists, self-appointed crusaders for justice, an Inspector General report and a congressional hearing. None of this had much of an effect on anything in the end, however. Plans were underway at that time to upgrade the NSFNET backbone from its T1-based (1.5Mbit/sec) bandwidth to a T3-based (45Mbit/sec) service. This required new designs in routing equipment and interfaces and the transition was a somewhat lengthy one, stretching over several months with some degree of technical difficulty, since setting up a T3-based high-performance backbone service with high levels of production traffic was, at that time, on the leading edge of technology. There were a number of small disruptions in service as the network stabilized and Merit and ANS learned how to deal with these new technologies and rapidly growing levels of participants and traffic. However, there was a critical advantage to that transition, in that it was being designed and engineered by people who had considerable experience in operating such a system, and the new service would be provided by those same people. There was no handoff to any new organizations. The same group operated both the T1 and T3 backbones during the transition and the T1 backbone was always there as a fallback (though its ability to actually handle the traffic load was lacking at that point). As the five year cooperative agreement period advanced to its conclusion, the NSF engaged a small team to come up with a new agreement or set of agreements to bring the national backbone system into a new structure. The NSF observed that its sponsorship of the backbone service, once considered an area of advanced technology and research, was now operating as a commodity service with several commercial networks in place. The NSF was set to move on to other advanced network technology projects and worked to come up with a way to withdraw from the established networking services and allow the commercial free market to carry on. However, NSF did have a responsibility to the educational and research activity it had been sponsoring for so long, so it did not intend to just walk away. Rather, it worked to come up with a scheme to facilitate an orderly transition to the new system. This was a lengthy process and there was considerable public input solicited, especially from the mid-level network community. This resulted in the publishing of a solicitation for proposals. It requested the proposals for four areas that would comprise the new national Internet structure: 1. NAPs - Network Access Points. The NSF proposed to sponsor a number of exchange points where national backbone providers (also called Network Service Providers or NSPs) could meet and exchange traffic. The NAPs would fulfill this function, and were intended to be a level 2 service; i.e. they would operate at the data link layer and carry the network layer (TCP/IP) traffic that was managed by the backbone operators who connected there. The idea behind this structure was to establish a limited number of interconnect points for the commercial backbones. NSF's stake was to guarantee full connectivity for the research and education community. Without the sponsorship of a core set of meet points, backbone providers would likely set up a hodgepodge of bilateral connect points, potentially resulting in routing chaos. The NAP operator is to provide the exchange facility. It is up to the individual NSPs that connect to the NAP to work out bilateral exchange agreements with the other NAP connectees. 2. Routing Arbiter. This would be an independent organization that would operate route servers at each of the NAPs. These servers would contain the database of routes to ease the transfer of traffic among the backbone providers that met at the NAPs. 3. vBNS - Very-High-Speed Backbone Network Service This would be the one new backbone network that the NSF would sponsor. It was intended to be a leading-edge research network operating at a minimum bandwidth of 155Mbit/sec with later upgrade to 622Mbit/sec. There would be a strict acceptable use policy on this network: It could only be used for meritorious high-bandwidth research activities. There could be no production traffic such as general file transfers, remote logins, Web browsing or email. That was to travel on the commercial backbones. 4. Inter-regional connectivity These would be a series of awards made to the academic regional networks (the group that built the original Internet). Since access to the ANS-operated NSFNET had no gateway access charge, there would be a large expense shock to the regional nets and their clients when they now had to pay hefty access fees for 45Mbit or above gateways onto the commercial backbones. The NSF proposed to award the regional nets a subsidy, declining to zero over a four year period, to ease the transition to higher fee levels or growth that would support the costs of commercial backbone access. Many organizations spent the summer of 1993 responding to this solicitation and by August of that year, they were all in. Independent review panels made recommendations to NSF staff and in February of 1994, the first series of awards were made: 1. NAPs The NSF awarded 3 priority NAPs. One in the New York area, one in Chicago and one in the San Francisco Bay area (California NAP) a. The NY NAP was awarded to Sprint, who proposed an interim FDDI ring with routers, to be substituted by an ATM switch when they felt the technology ready. b. The Chicago NAP was awarded to Ameritech and Bellcore. Ameritech is the Regional Bell Operating Company in the Great Lakes area. Bellcore is the research arm of the Regional phone companies. Ameritech proposed to install an ATM switch system using an AT&T Globeview-2000 switch. c. The California NAP was awarded to Pacbell and Bellcore. Pacbell also proposed the immediate installation of an ATM switch system using 2 Newbridge 36150 units. d. A fourth semi-offical NAP, called the DC NAP also is being put inplaced. It is built and operated by Metropolitan Fiber Systems (MFS) in the Washington DC area. MFS is evolving its facility from its current Ethernet meet point, to an FDDI system. 2. Routing Arbiter This award went to a joint team of Merit (the routing manager of the current NSFNET) and the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) of the University of California. ISI will do most of the work on routing management systems and Merit will implement the route servers and route server database. 3. vBNS This award went to MCI, who is implementing this service now as a 155Mbit/s ATM service. Connections to the five NSF-sponsored supercomputer centers and the NSF priority NAPs are under way and service is expected to be available by April 1, 1995. 4. Inter-regional connectivity A series of awards was made to several regional networks who chose Network Service Providers (NSPs) to carry their traffic to the NAPs and other backbones. Most (7-8) of the regionals chose InternetMCI. Two or three chose SprintLink and one chose ANS. Now What: This brings us to where we are today: Smack in the middle of the transition from the old NSFNET to the new structure. You will notice that this moves the national structure from a primary R&E T3 backbone with several growing parallel commercial backbones to a more complex system of multiple commercial backbones with major exchange points. Previously, the ANS/NSFNET was really the center of the national Internet. There will no longer be a single national central backbone; indeed, traffic on the current T3 ANS/NSFNET would soon be reaching the point of saturation. There is no current production technology that can provide a single replacement network backbone to carry the required traffic. What, Me Worry? You may notice that this newer complex scheme has no single authority overseeing the implementation. The success of the construction depends upon the mutual cooperation of multiple phone companies, (both regional (Regional Bell Operating Companies or RBOCs) and national long-distance (IntereXchange Carriers or IXCs), Academic and commercial research institutions, equipment manufacturers and regional network providers. The National Science Foundation does not see it as its role to manage the new national Internet structure. Merit is responsible, via the existing cooperative agreement, for the smooth running and handoff of the existing system, but not the management of the building of the new structure. This new system is a massive complex assembly of components and subsystems that must be put in place by multiple independent organizations, most of them fierce competitors of each other, on a strict schedule (funding for the existing NSFNET terminates irrevocably on April 1, 1995) and there is no Project Manager. There are also potential sources of problems in the implementation of the components by the major players. The greatest risk comes at the NAPs. A NAP is really a high-performance computing system, with multiple I/O channels, sophisticated hardware and software, and a need for operational procedures that are well planned and understood. I used to be involved in the design and development of high-performance computing systems and there were a couple of fundamental axioms you followed if you didn't want to fall flat on your face: 1. Don't change technology and architecture at the same time. The developmental risks of trying to do two major things at once is too great. 2. Build a prototype that you plan to discard. This is required of any major systems development project, either hardware or software. The rule is, plan to build a prototype, because if you don't, you will build it anyway; it will be called version 1.0 or model 100 and will be a lot more expensive. Half of the NAP operators violated these axioms. There is a major architectural change in these new systems. It will take the NAP operators time to figure out how to manage a major switching system with multiple high-bandwidth backbone operators depending upon it and pouring traffic into it. It will also take a while to work this into the grand new national system. This is the architectural change. The NAP operators may potentially have to deal with new technologies to implement the high-bandwidth needs of managing the exchange of such large volumes of IP packets. This is the technology change. There is also the issue of inexperience. With the exception of MFS, none of the NAP operators has ever done this kind of thing before. MFS, in DC, has some experience at managing a meet point. It has operated the Metropolitan Area Ethernet in the East (MAE-East) for a year or two. This is an informal exchange point where most of the NSPs meet to exchange traffic. They have chosen to build on this experience and expand the technology from Ethernet to FDDI, not a great technological leap. This is a fairly safe approach. Sprint, in NY, has never operated a proto-NAP, but will learn how. It has chosen to implement the new architecture, but build a prototype out of current technology. They will then migrate it to ATM after experience is gained at both NAP operation and when ATM technology is more proven. They are building a prototype. Ameritech Advanced Data Services in Chicago had determined that it doesn't need a prototype and was going to use ATM from the start. Ditto with Pacbell in California. Well, it turns out that there are problems with both the ATM technology in a high-bandwidth high-volume production application and with some of the interface equipment required to be used with the ATM equipment. (Surprise, surprise - a new unproven technology has some kinks yet.) Ameritech, at the last minute in January decided to build a prototype after all and ordered an FDDI ring and some Cisco 7000 routers to build a limited prototype. Pacbell ran into the same problems, but planned to blast on with its initial plans, convinced that they would make it work in time. OK, Everybody Jump: Beginning in Dec '94 and Jan-Feb '95, the regional networks began to move their traffic onto their new NSP backbones. The problem was, the NAPs weren't fully ready. MAE-East, a 10Mbit ethernet, for a while became the center of the US Internet, since it was the only working meet-point for a large number of NSPs. Fortunately, MAE-East evolved into MAE-East+, an FDDI version, more capable of handling the traffic volumes. As of this time (mid March) the Chicago NAP is still not operational. The Pacbell NAP had already been written off as a reliable exchange point by most. The Sprint NAP is up, but not everyone is connected there yet. The key players, MCI, Sprint and ANS are, however and traffic between the MCI-connected regionals and Sprint customers is tranversing the Sprint NAP. Traffic load through it is high because of the lack of operational status of the other two NAPs. Since, in January, Pacbell was still planning to go ahead with the ATM system which many were convinced would not work, and not build a prototype, the manager of the NASA Science Internet decided to build one for them. NASA is installing a DEC Gigaswitch at its Ames facility and inviting any NSP or other entity to wire into it. It will be called MAE-West. This will provide a critical exchange point for the west coast. Most of the western regional networks are sending traffic to the east coast for exchange onto other backbones. Packets from one Seattle company to another can travel to Washington and back to reach their destination; not an optimal situation. Pressure was brought to bear on Pacbell, and I believe they have agreed to install FDDI equipment to finally construct a prototype. How this now fits in with the new MAE-West is unclear. So, When Does the Ride Start? Are we gonna crash?: The transition is underway now. All MRNet traffic now travels via CICNet infrastructure onto the InternetMCI national T3 backbone. Within a month or two, our traffic will travel directly via T3 link to InternetMCI. Traffic to SprintLink, PSI, Alternet or other customers transits the exchange points, which at the present are either MAE-East+ or the NY NAP. Traffic to SprintLink customers goes via MAE-East+ because Sprint does not yet have enough bandwidth in place to connect to its NY NAP, so I've been told. Over the next month or so, we are likely to see the Chicago NAP come up and the MAE-West facility come up. The Pacbell NAP may also be working within a short time also. These new exchange points will take a lot of pressure off the few exchange points now working. The primary reason for this long background and explanation is to let you know that there are likely to be disruptions in Internet service, either regional or national, that will affect your operations. It is important that you realize this and be prepared to cope with it. There are things beyond MRNet's control that will occur as these systems come together. These problems will be either partial or total as the systems come online and start carrying heavier traffic loads. There are likely also to be disruptions on the major NSP backbones as they become accustomed to carrying such large production loads. None of the equipment now in place has ever been put in large-scale use under such heavy traffic loads. The people who are operating these facilities, in some cases, are new at the job. The transition is not complete and a lot is yet to come as the NSPs, NAPs, Routing Arbiter system, etc. gets put into place and shaken out. As you can see, there is an immense potential for disasters all over the place, with no project manager, NAP operators who are inexperienced, NAP technology that is not ready for prime-time, NSPs who have varying levels of experience, network routers that are being stressed into new performance territory and several other trip points. However, all is not dark. This is, after all, the Internet - a system that grew up on lack of central authority and management. Indeed, the fact that we have traveled this far into the transition with only minor derailments is very encouraging and we will probably come through in the end with only minor scrapes and bruises. There are a lot of new people, but a lot of the people who built the Internet as we now know it are still in action and providing expert guidance. All players from the smallest state networks to the largest phone companies have a lot at stake in success. The Internet is a critically important resource and it will be made to work because so many need and want it to work. The mutually beneficial unmanaged cooperative culture of the Internet is strong (Use the Force, Luke.) and even the new players are moving according to its informal ethereal guidelines. Designers and operators have broken the rules about project management and system development, and the technology is quirky and unpredictable. But it is somehow coming together. It will likely be a rough and bumpy ride, hence the whimsy of the title, and we should be prepared for that. It might take six months to a year to feel a new sense of stability and reliability, but it will be worth it. This new structure will provide a new basis for the growth of the Internet that we may not be able to imagine yet. If you are willing to hang on with us, we'll do our best to get you through. If you have any questions or would like additional background details, please write or call me directly or any of the MRNet engineering staff. Dennis Fazio, executive director Minnesota Regional Network (612) 342-2570 dfazio@MR.Net ------------------------ Forwarded to TELECOM Digest by: Kelly Breit President and CEO ITE/Netalliance, Inc. 6009 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 103 Minneapolis, MN 55416-1623 612-542-9440 612-542-9341 Fax [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note in 1999: Any of the above sound familiar? Comments and critiques are welcome as always. PAT] ------------------------------ From: waltdnes@interlog.com (Walter Dnes) Subject: Re: Watch Out for Forever Paging Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 04:50:27 GMT Organization: Interlog Internet Services On Tue, 03 Aug 1999 14:22:45 -0400, Chris Wysocki wrote: > A further exchange of e-mails elicited the statement that there are > literally "tens of thousands" of 800/888/877 numbers associated with > his service, so any attempt to compile a blocking list to place into > my PBX would be imposssible. Does anybody remember the previous billing-for-an-800-number brouhaha? My memory is a bit hazy (and I can't raise your website right now), but I think it was the 1-800-CALL-MCI fiasco. MCI would accept 1-800 calls ... - for long-distance information (approx 50 cents each); - and would offer to complete the long distance call via their lines. That would be the real killer on a phone bill. When PBX owners started blocking *ALL* 1-800 numbers in self defense, a coalition of businesses using 1-800 numbers threatened to sue MCI. The grounds were something to the effect that employees could no longer place orders from their place of employment (during lunch or coffee breaks) and the merchants were suffering financial loss as a result. MCI backed off. Walter Dnes procmail spamfilter http://www.interlog.com/~waltdnes/spamdunk/spamdunk.htm ------------------------------ From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: 5 Aug 1999 01:57:10 -0400 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA Richard Thomsen writes: >> Whether you like the Clintons or not, I think it's preposterous to >> look at what happened as a result of this illegal action and the harm >> (deserved or not) it caused to several parties and say that the >> prosecution is political. > I seem to remember some Democrats listening in and taping a telephone > conversation of Newt Gingrinch, and they were not either side of the > conversation. They also released the tapes to the press to be > published. Of course, the Clinton's "Justice" department did not > bother to indict anyone in that case. Different DA, different jurisdiction. I think they should have been prosecuted, but I don't see how that case is pertinent to the Tripp case. And even if it were, two wrongs don't make a right. If you're indignant about them not having been prosecuted, then you *ought* to be in favor of prosecuting Tripp. Eric Florack writes: >> From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) >>> Well, one way to measure tha is to look at when the law was enforced >>> previously, and under what conditions. The conditions being set here >>> are very suspect, indeed. >> They are? I don't really recall any comparable cases. The law generally >> looks unfavorably on people who flaunt their crimes, however. > Well, OK, let's consider the lack of a trial involving the folks who > taped a telephone conversation of Newt Gingrich a few years ago. That > involved cellular traffic which is a FEDERAL statute, if I recall > rightly. Oddly enough the DA in the case wa also a Democrat. > What I'm suggesting here, is that this law is not one enforced as a > matter of principle, but as a tool for retrobution. OK, but your argument doesn't support that suggestion. Different jurisdictions, different circumstances, different DAs. Personally, I thought the folks in the Gingrich case should have been prosecuted. >>> Not quite. She was only obsure insofar as the press wanted her to be; >> This is quite possibly the most fascinating sentence that I've read on >> Usenet in a long time. One is generally *famous* because the press >> wants you to be; hiding people is not one of their strengths. > That rather depends on how much of a story they sit on. In the age of the Drudge Report, don't you think it's a bit silly to talk about "the media" as a monolithic entity in this sort of matter? >>> The problem the Clintons had with her was and is, her claims ... claims >>> which the tapes went a long way to confirm. Charges against the Clinton >>> have never been sparse. What has been sparse is confirmation, for >>> reasons we won't get into here. These tapes provided that confirmation. >>> And this is nothing more than payback for being a whistleblower. If >>> this reprisal goes unchallanged, you might as well forget about any >>> protection for whistle blowers. >> Confirmation of *what*? It's not like Tripp had tapes of Clinton >> selling secrets to the Chinese. She didn't even have tapes of Clinton >> himself doing *anything*. What she had were tapes of someone else >> talking about doing things of dubious legality with Clinton. > Which Clinton had been denying. That's the key. It exposed Clinton as > a liar, as did her original charges. Which placed her in danger. Danger of *what*? I think there's a bit of circular reasoning going on here. Without the tapes, Tripp had no reason to go public with anything. Once she went public, she justified the tapes by saying they were for her protection. Until she went public, she didn't have anything to need protection *from*. I have a problem with that. > Allow me to tie this back to the topic of Telecom, by asking the > question: Can anyone in this great room of telecom minds, tell me when > the last time this Maryland law was enforced? Good question. Can you tell me when the last time someone publicly boasted about breaking it? Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu Our documentation manager was showing her 2 year old son around the office. He was introduced to me, at which time he pointed out that we were both holding bags of popcorn. We were both holding bottles of juice. But only *he* had a lollipop. He asked his mother, "Why doesn't HE have a lollipop?" Her reply: "He can have a lollipop any time he wants to. That's what it means to be a programmer." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 21:53:26 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' herb@herbstein.com (Herb Stein) wrote: > 1+10 should always work. If there are still people out there that > will optionally make a call depending on whether it is local, > local toll or long distance toll, let them do the homework to > avoid toll charges. We always seem to reduce everything in this > country to the lowest common denominator to protect the > mis/uninformed people. I agree that 1+ten-digits should ALWAYS work for ALL types of calls within the NANP - whether local or toll. BUT, where possible, and this could be NANP-wide if certain dialing procedures are generalized (see Linc Madison's frequent posts regarding dialing and billing within his state of California), if someone is placing a call and expect the "charges" of THAT CALL to be _LOCAL_ONLY_ (or toll-free) by NOT dialing a '1+', but the destination number dialed is actually to a toll location (determined by its NPA-NXX), then THAT call should NOT proceed but rather get a recorded announcement! i.e., I do _NOT_ want to see any proliferation of "straight" 7D/10D toll dialing in the NANP, and ultimately I would like to see all such existing "straight" 7/10-D toll dialing be replaced with 1+ten-digits. IMO, the _IDEAL_ dialing procedures in the NANP (at least within Canada and all US-NANP-jurisdictions; dialing procedures FROM or WITHIN the non-US NANP-Caribbean should still their own decision) would mean overlay NPAs implemented from now on in any/all NPA relief, and ulimate dialing be: - LOCAL calls: "straight" ten-digits and permissively 1+ten-digits; - TOLL calls: MANDATORY 1+ten-digits; i.e., ONLY local/free calls would complete if dialed on a "straight" ten-digit basis; toll calls would REQUIRE a 1+ before ten-digits; ALL inTRA-NANP calls would complete on 1+ten-digits, toll billed IF the destination NPA-NXX is a toll destination, while NO toll would be billed if the destination NPA-NXX is local/free according to the carrier you use. This is a CONSUMER issue!!! For those of us who don't care about whether or not specific calls are toll or not, then we can dial them ALL as 1+ten-digits. For those of us who intend to call certain numbers ONLY if they are local/free, then we should dial such calls as "straight" ten-digits, and if such a call (by the NPA-NXX) is really a toll destination, then telco would block with a recording! This will make toll-restriction devices easier to program, mis-dials to INTENDED local/free numbers but really turn out to be toll less frequent, etc. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 21:16:31 -0700 From: Linc Madison Subject: Crazy Proposals For 310 Area Code I have been in e-mail contact with some of the folks fighting against the 310/424 overlay in Los Angeles. They remain adamant that it is not too late to prevent the overlay, although the CPUC seems to have dashed that hope on Tuesday. The simple reality is that, even if the best conceivable system of number conservation were implemented tomorrow, it would be too late to stop the 310 overlay. One of the half-baked proposals to relieve 310 was to consolidate all of 310 into a single rate center. Currently, 310 has 17 rate centers stretching from Malibu to San Pedro, plus Avalon, which is on Catalina Island, about 20 miles off the coast. Just for a few examples of local calling areas, Malibu is local to Agoura Hills (in 818), and San Pedro is local to Long Beach (in 562), but Malibu to San Pedro or Long Beach is toll, and San Pedro to Agoura Hills is toll. Avalon is a toll call from any other rate center. So now let's suppose we consolidate all of 310 into a single rate center. The most logical place to situate the rating point would be somewhere near LAX airport. We now have two options, though: (A) Keep the 12-mile rule as used in most of California. All calls with rate centers within 12 miles of that dot on the map are local, and calls up to 17 miles are "Zone 3"; anything beyond that is toll. However, some calls that are currently local would now be at least Zone 3, if not toll. (Conversely, some calls that are currently toll would now be local.) (B) Preserve the local calling area as it currently exists. Any point that is currently local to any of the 17 rate centers would be local to the new consolidated rate center. However, the LECs would now demand a rate increase to make up for the lost toll revenues. Either way, you get howls of protest from ordinary citizens, and for good reason. While some rate center consolidation in 310 would be feasible and beneficial, you would need to keep at least four or five rate centers on the mainland, plus Avalon on its own. In any case, it looks like the new date for the 310/424 overlay is October 16, 1999, to be confirmed at the CPUC meeting September 2. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom(at)LincMad(dot)com * North American Telephone Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: e-mail replies to the address in this sig will be read first! << ------------------------------ From: Michael S. Berlant Subject: Re: Int'l. Drivers Licenses, How About Int'l. Telephone Numbers? Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 13:41:29 +0900 Organization: Professional EDS Vagabond I would be interested in learning just how this Driving License scam is supposed to work. I have held such a license for about 20 years now, and know how it is supposed to work. The IDP convention of 1949 recognized that officials in member countries could not easily read and/or verify validate the authenticity of a driver's license issued in another member country. They set about to create a single document that would be in a form and format that was universally agreed upon. The International Driving Permit is a little booklet, about 6" tall by 4" wide. On the face is the name of the issuing country, the agency delegated by that country to be responsible for their issuance (the AAA in the USA), the expiration date (always one year from issuance) and a serial number. There is also a reminder on the face that the permit is not valid in the country of issuance. Inside the back cover is a foldout with all of the driver's particulars in a fixed layout. Line 1 is the family name, line 2 is the given names, line 3 is the place of birth, line 4 is the date of birth, line 5 is the driver's permanent residence. Beneath that, along the left edge are 5 vehicle classes; one or more are marked as "permitted" by the issuing agency. To the right is a 2" square photo, and the driver's signature beneath the photo. The bottom inch is for any agency to note an exclusion from driving in their country. The pages that fill in the middle of the booklet are simply "cheat sheets" for the police or car rental agent (or whoever) in a handful of languages, that describe the particulars sheet. It is clear that this is simply a standardized translation and formatting of a legitimate member nation's license and that the license upon which the IDP is based is a part of the IDP - the IDP cannot stand alone. These scammers must be producing IDPs from another country, erasing the warnings I mentioned above, and selling them as valid licenses. The first time they get stopped by a traffic cop in the US, for example, and don't produce the real license from that home country, they're in real trouble. At that time the scam victim would have the additional joy of explaining why he is carrying a driving license from a country where he has no permission to reside. I guess we could send the video of that traffic stop to the Candid Camera folks. Maybe we could hang out in Rockaway, NJ and see watch the scammers operate. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #280 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Aug 5 14:27:17 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA07810; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:27:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:27:17 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908051827.OAA07810@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #281 TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Aug 99 14:27:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 281 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Leonard Erickson) Re: Special Report: Can You Trust AT&T Wireless PCS Text Msg (L. Erickson) Re: Channelized DS3 (Matthew Black) It's Worse Than You Thought (73115.1041@compuserve.com) Revenue Accounting Office (Phil Smiley) Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client (Randy Hayes) Re: Responsibility of Local Provider (Randy Hayes) Re: Channelized DS3 (Richard Kenshalo) Re: Some Local or LD Calls (Bill Levant) FBI Wiretap Worries Slow Satellite Phones (Monty Solomon) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Eric Florack) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Richard Thomsen) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Dale Neiburg) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Chris Jones) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Matt Simpson) Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping (Randy Hayes) Correction: re Tripp Indicted For Taping (E. Cummings) Re: How to Identify a Wireless Number? (Michi Kaifu) Web Site Now Operational Again (TELECOM Digest Editor) The Whole Internet Map (TELECOM Digest Editor) Last Laugh! Employee Has Bean Where Brain Should Be (Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 07:10:09 PST Organization: Shadownet Linc Madison writes: > In article , Dave Close > wrote: >> Jim Sielaff writes: >>> Does anyone know of a searchable database which indicates a 'local' >>> or 'toll' call from a particular NPA-NXX? >> It occurs to me that you could, or a software vendor could, provide a >> package which learns which dialing sequence works for any particular >> number. Your system could then try dialing it all possible ways in >> some rational sequence and keep track of what works for a particular >> NPA-NXX. You probably wouldn't need to do much re-dialing after the >> first day or two. > That solves the question of "how do I dial this number?" but not the > question of "is this number local or toll?" It does in most of the NANP. Because is required for toll in most of the area. > If I dial 1-510-663-xxxx, which I must dial as 1+10D, it's a local > call; however, if I dial 663-xxxx (equivalent to 1-415-663-xxxx), > that's a toll call. So push for "toll alerting". > My proposal for California: Ah. Well, there's your problem. California does things in the weirdest ways. And usually for no good reason. I *still* haven't heard a sensible argument against toll alerting. But I've heard a *lot* based on treating "measured service" (ie paying per call on local calls) as being *normal* rather than an *extreme* cost cutting measure. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Special Report: Can You Trust AT&T Wireless PCS Text Msg? Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 07:26:36 PST Organization: Shadownet > But of even greater concern is the fact that text messages submitted > to ATTWS via their e-mail interface, at least for delivery to phones > in the Los Angeles area (I don't have info about other areas at this > time -- it might well be a nationwide issue) can frequently simply > "vanish" after delivery to the ATTWS e-mail gateway. A mailing list I'm on had a message posted to someone who had an ATTWS.COm address stating that they needed to tell their boss that his domain had been dropped from the DNS database for non payment of charges or some such. There was a quote of some info gotten from somewhere that showed a $35 charge outstanding. I assume this is the semiannual domain name charge. :-) Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: Channelized DS3 Date: 5 Aug 1999 14:41:04 GMT In article , Joe_Yang@netcomsystems. com says: > Could anybody tell me where can I find any information about T3? What > is the "Channelized DS3" meaning? 672 voice channels. That's a bunch of POTS! -----------------------------(c) 1999 Matthew Black, all rights reserved-- matthew black | Opinions expressed herein belong to me and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer california state university | network services BH-180E | e-mail: black at csulb dot edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 6D 14 36 ED 5F 34 C4 B3 long beach, ca 90840 | E9 1E F3 CB E7 65 EE BC ------------------------------ From: 73115.1041@compuserve.com Subject: It's Worse Than You Thought Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 14:46:14 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Caller ID: The Next Generation Given the controversy that Caller ID generated, it will be interesting to see what happens when the following service becomes a bit more well known: According to an ad in the local paper, US West is selling (for $25/month) a graphical representation of incoming calls. That is, US West provides the data and software to view a detailed map of the source of all incoming calls (down to the building on a street). One can see how they do this: Since they have the name and number of the caller, it becomes very easy to go to the line records and look up the address. Ken 73115.1041@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: Phil Smiley Subject: Revenue Accounting Office Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 14:45:09 GMT What function does the RAO perform? Thanks, Smiley ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 07:43:14 -0500 From: Randy Hayes Subject: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client Brett noted: "Spam is legal ..." You might want to check recent legislative efforts in various states, as in Iowa, legislation went into effect July 1st to make spamming illegal. Randy Hayes ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 07:50:44 -0500 From: Randy Hayes Subject: Re: Responsibility of Local Provider I would suspect USWEST is selling-off local service in this case, as they announced recently selling many exchanges in the midwest. If this situation is a part of the pending sale, your best bet would be to contact your state's Public Utilities Board, as they must approve the sale. If they hear customers are already getting poor service because of the impending sale, the Board just might slow down the approval process ... and in these business deals, those selling and buying will usually come to the table to make things right to get their sale completed ... (even if this isn't the case, the Public Utilities Board is the entity to go to regarding these types of complaints ... they have primary jurisdiction over local service, with certain exceptions). Randy Hayes ------------------------------ From: rkenshalo@mta-telco.com (Richard Kenshalo) Subject: Re: Channelized DS3 Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:03:30 GMT > Could anybody tell me where can I find any information about T3? What > is the "Channelized DS3" meaning? Two basic formats are used, each composed of the basic M-Frame structure. The M bits establish the multiframe structure. Both channelized (M13 format) and un-channelized (C-Bit Parity) service applications are supported. The various applications of the basic M-frame structure are distinguished from one another by the way the 21 C-bits are used. M13 Format (Subrated/Channelized DS3) - The M13 format will allow a DS3 signal to be channelized into 28 DS1s. C-Bit Parity Format (Subrated/Channelized and Non-Subrated/Non- Channelized DS3) - C-Bit Parity can be used for either channelized or non-channelized DS3 signals. It is recommended in all cases for non-channelized DS3 service because of it's superior maintenance capabilities over the standard M13 format. DS1 to DS3 multiplexing (channelized) using the C-Bit Parity format is the same two-step multiplexing process used for standard M13 (channelized) format except that bit stuffing is done at every opportunity during the second step of multiplexing. Since stuffing is done 100% of the time, the C-bits are no longer needed to indicate the presence of stuff bits, and are used for proprietary maintenance overhead capabilities. With the M13 format, the only available path level monitoring technique is to use the P-bit, which is a parity designation for the entire payload (4704 bits of data). The problem is that most networking equipment interfacing at the DS3 level was designed to segment the network on a point to point basis. Thus, at intermediate points along the network, the network equipment corrects the value of the P-bit before transmitting the signal along the DS3 line. This results in no complete monitoring on a path basis. Path level monitoring using the C-Bit Parity format allows end to end monitoring of the path level since these bits are not altered anywhere along the path. Also, the FEBE allows the far end to indicate to the near end that a parity error on a block of data has occurred. Richard Kenshalo Matanuska Telephone Association ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:09:11 EDT Subject: Re : Some Local or LD Calls > ...the overlays of 610 with 424 [in eastern Pennsylvania]... Nope. It's 484. By the way, BA got the translations fixed about ten minutes after I got to the right person there ... and ate $70.00 in charges for mistranslated local calls without so much as a peep -- even though my IXC bills separately. In essence, BA took my word for it (I offered to fax in my bills but they said to forget about it). 9.5 points out of 10 in my book ... the reduction is because it took two calls to get past the Repair Service droids. P.S. Calls between 215 and 610 (and, presumably, 267 or 484, though I haven't seen any numbers assigned there yet) can be dialed with, or without, the 1+, regardless of whether they are local, metro (metered) or intra-LATA toll, and -- now that the translations have been fixed -- bill correctly in either case. Interestingly, the problem **wasn't** with 1+10D, it was with "straight" 10D __within__ my 610 area code during the permissive period before mandatory 10-digit took effect. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:06:36 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FBI Wiretap Worries Slow Satellite Phones By John Borland Staff Writer, CNET News.com August 3, 1999, 4:00 a.m. PT The Federal Bureau of Investigation is putting the brakes -- at least temporarily -- on the satellite phone industry. The FBI and other U.S. law enforcement agencies are worried that new space-based telephone systems, which theoretically allow a person to use a wireless phone from virtually anywhere on earth, will undermine their ability to wiretap telephone calls and trace criminals through cellphones. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,40048,00.html ------------------------------ From: eflorack@my-deja.com (Eric Florack) Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 18:09:33 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The current cluster of messages on Linda Tripp in this issue will bringa merciful end to this thread. PAT] In article , Mike Stockman wrote: > In article , Eric Florack > wrote: >> And this is nothing more than payback for being a whistleblower. If >> this replrisal goes unchallanged, you might as well forget about any >> protection for whistle blowers. > Just because a would-be whistleblower suspects wrongdoing doesn't mean > that person can break the law to prove it. (Snip) > This isn't a reprisal for whistleblowing. It's a very, very, very high > profile case of someone breaking a state law that can't be swept under > the rug because it would set a bad precedent and send a bad message > (we won't prosecute crimes if it looks as if we're being partisan). Well, I submit precident has already been set here in the case of another less reported phone taping case ... that of a cell call involving the Republican leadership, including every Democrat's boogieman, Newt Gingrich. If I recall, that person(s) ended up not even being charged for their crime against FEDERAL law, as well as state law. Since the case involved a cell phone call, FCC law comes into play here, at several levels, any one of which the perp could have been charged under. So, that the people involved now decide to go after this case, speaks volumes to me, about a thuggishness and an abuse of power. See Chris Matthew's fine column on the subject of the kind of message THAT sends. If this ever does go to trial, it will make for some very muddled telecom law, particularly in light of the Federal and state government inaction in the other case I mentioned. > And, by the way, it's high profile because Tripp made sure as many > people as possible knew who she was and what she had done. She dug her > own hole on this one. ------------------------------ From: Richard Thomsen Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:01:28 -0600 Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Mike Jones (jonesm2@rpi.edu) wrote: > Richard Thomsen writes: >>> Whether you like the Clintons or not, I think it's preposterous to >>> look at what happened as a result of this illegal action and the harm >>> (deserved or not) it caused to several parties and say that the >>> prosecution is political. >> I seem to remember some Democrats listening in and taping a telephone >> conversation of Newt Gingrinch, and they were not either side of the >> conversation. They also released the tapes to the press to be >> published. Of course, the Clinton's "Justice" department did not >> bother to indict anyone in that case. > Different DA, different jurisdiction. I think they should have been > prosecuted, but I don't see how that case is pertinent to the Tripp > case. And even if it were, two wrongs don't make a right. If you're > indignant about them not having been prosecuted, then you *ought* to > be in favor of prosecuting Tripp. You misunderstand. I was responding to the comment that it was "preposterous" to say that the prosecution was political. I expressed no comment either way about Tripp being prosecuted. I am indignant that the current Administration prosecutes whom it does not like, and lets those it does like go free, as the above example shows. Another example: Newt Gingrinch was charged with something like 79 counts until they could find one that stuck, so the Democrats fined him for an "ethics violation" (which the IRS subsequently said was not a violation, but he did not get the fine removed) and insisted that he resign. But the President can violate all ethics imaginable, lie about it, and not even get censured. There was a ex-DA congressman from LA who, during the impeachment hearings, talked about how this Administration has put 16,000 people in prison for perjury. However, when the President is charged with it, "It is not something someone should lose his job over," and "No-one is prosecuted for perjury." This Administration has gone all around the country taking people to court for sexual harassment, and Clarance Thomas was "unfit" for high office because of one accusation over it. But when the President does it, somehow it is not a serious problem. Nobody seems to find anything strange about the biggest liar ever in the history of the Presidency telling scientists at the National Laboratories that they must take lie detector tests. Who can forget the famous quote: "Any President who lies to the American People should resign" (unless it is this one, I guess). This Administration has shown without doubt that it is vindictive. In most companies, if two people commit similar misdeeds, and one is severly punished and the other is not, then the company is liable for discrimination charges. Of course, we all know that the Administration is above all these petty laws (Divine right of Presidents?). Of course, that just goes along with "soverign immunity" where a company and its officers can get prosecuted for a crime like pollution, but a government agency and its members are immune from any such prosecution. That is why the biggest pollutor in the country is the government. ------------------------------ From: Dale Neiburg Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:28:51 -0400 Eric Florack wrote: > Well, OK, let's consider the lack of a trial involving the folks who > taped a telephone conversation of Newt Gingrich a few years ago. That > involved cellular traffic which is a FEDERAL statute, if I recall > rightly. Oddly enough the DA in the case wa also a Democrat. > What I'm suggesting here, is that this law is not one enforced as a > matter of principle, but as a tool for retrobution. Actually it's much dirtier than that. In this case, the DA couldn't -- and didn't -- bring an indictment. That was done by unanimous verdict of a grand jury, chosen more-or-less randomly from the registered voters of Howard County. Therefore, those nasty Clintons must have corrupted the entire population of the county, since that's the only way they could have been sure to get the results they wanted. Since they also had to start the state prosecution before Ken Starr offered an immunity deal, they must have corrupted Ken Starr also, so that he would wait for a go-ahead from them before going into action. Of course, it could just be that the grand jury was responding to an egregious, high-profile violation of the law. But it couldn't be that simple, or we couldn't have an elaborate conspiracy theory ... and that's no fun. > Allow me to tie this back to the topic of Telecom, by asking the > question: Can anyone in this great room of telecom minds, tell me when > the last time this Maryland law was enforced? I don't know. My guess would be that it was probably the last time that someone: (A) Broke the law; and (B) Held a press conference to boast of having broken the law; and (C) Made it public knowledge that they were involved in a deal with a sleazy publisher to make as much moola as possible from their violation of the law. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping From: Chris Jones Date: 05 Aug 1999 08:41:17 -0400 Eric Florack writes: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) wrote: >> Well, one way to measure tha is to look at when the law was enforced >> previously, and under what conditions. The conditions being set here >> are very suspect, indeed. > They are? I don't really recall any comparable cases. The law generally > looks unfavorably on people who flaunt their crimes, however. Well, OK, let's consider the lack of a trial involving the folks who taped a telephone conversation of Newt Gingrich a few years ago. That involved cellular traffic which is a FEDERAL statute, if I recall rightly. Oddly enough the DA in the case wa also a Democrat. The lack of a trial was because the couple who recorded the call plead guilty -- why did you leave out that highly relevant fact? I don't know of the party affiliation of the DA involved, but this case sure doesn't offer any comfort to Tripp. ------------------------------ From: msimpson@uky.edu (Matt Simpson) Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 08:44:02 -0400 Organization: University of Kentucky Computing Center In article , Mike Stockman wrote: > Just because a would-be whistleblower suspects wrongdoing doesn't mean > that person can break the law to prove it. An interesting example of that was the recent Chiquita case. A reporter for the {Cincinnati Enquirer} wrote an expose on Chiquita's criminal business practices in Central America. His source was voice mail messages that he had stolen from Chiquita's system, with the help of a Chiquita attorney. When his electronic theft was discovered, Enquirer printed a retraction and apology, even though there was no suggestion that the story was inaccurate, just that it had been written with illegal methods. Reporter was indicted, and I believe he pled guilty. A precedent which supports Stockman's contention that whistleblowing does not support lawbreaking (without even needing to get into the debate over whether the actions reported by the whistleblower were criminal or "wrongdoing" in this case). Matt Simpson - Paris, KY ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 07:57:13 -0500 From: Randy Hayes Subject: Re: Tripp Indicted For Taping > Just because a would-be whistleblower suspects wrongdoing doesn't mean > that person can break the law to prove it. I agree, Whistleblowers do not (or at least should not) get a pass. The recently-completed situation with ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) is a good example. Not only did the execs involved get prison time and large fines (finally some at the top get nailed for their misdeeds) but the whistleblower is in prison for acts somewhat related to the whole episode. Randy Hayes ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 12:22:50 -0400 From: e cummings Subject: Correction re: Tripp Indicted For Taping Just to set the record straight, there *was* a conviction in the Gingrich cellular eavesdropping case. The the Florida couple who allegedly used a portable Radio Shack scanner in their vehicle and stumbled across (and tape recorded) a political conference call (which was stupidly broadcast in the clear with a portable analog cellular handset by a clueless Republican legislator on vacation--an act itself in violation of Republic party rules) was ultimately prosecuted and received a fine and probation. It was a federal conviction, but I do not know which specific existing statute was used. Shortly after this incident, Republicans (bitter about their unethical Gingrich ethics hearing strategizing having been broadcast in the clear and published in the {New York Times}) enacted legislation making it a felony to merely possess or transfer information from a cellular call to anyone--even if the person doing so did not themselves conduct the monitoring. This would criminalize the actions of the Democratic congressman who was given the tape by the couple and who then forwarded it to the {New York Times}. We've come a long way (backwards, in my opinion) since the Pentagon Papers case. ------------------------------ From: Michi Kaifu Subject: Re: How to Identify a Wireless Number? Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 00:07:11 -0700 Doug Terman asked: > Do any of the listers have specific knowledge as to how wireless > telephone numbers (as opposed to land line telephone numbers) are > identified in Australia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, > Switzerland, Spain, the U.K., Belgium, etc.? Sorry for the late reply, I was so behind in reading T.D. Japan's mobile numbers were much simplified as of January 1, 1999. Now they all have the same identifier at the top, as oppose to different numbers for different carriers in the past. Cellular: 90-CDEx-xxxx PHS: 70-CDEx-xxxx (Add "0" at the top if you are making the call in Japan.) "CDE" identifies carrier. Ministry of Post and Telecommunication has a list of all the prefixes used in Japan in their Japanese version web, but I could not locate the same list in English. As for the mobile numbers, (unless you can read Japanese) you can refer to the English version press release for the number change for January, at the following location. http://www.mpt.go.jp/whatsnew/mobile_phone.html Recently some international carriers refuse to terminate incoming international calls to DoCoMo, because they are upset that DoCoMo charges astronomical rate for interconnection while DoCoMo started to provide international outgoing calls from DoCoMo cell phones themselves, bypassing these international carriers. So, you may end up no connection at all to these numbers, anyway. Michi Kaifu ENOTECH Consulting michi@pop.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:34:07 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Web Site Now Operational Again I announced a couple times yesterday that the telecom-digest.org web site was unreachable due to a problem at iecc.com, and that appears to have been corrected as of Thursday morning. My thanks to John Levine for his prompt attention to the problem and getting it corrected. John sent me a note saying it was some problem in his local telephone company and that he had talked to the technician there and gotten it repaired. http://internet-pioneers.org and http://internet-history.org are also now back on line. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:48:35 EDT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: The Whole Internet Map I recieved a nice gift in the mail today from Greg Staple, who is the president of TeleGeography, Inc. in Washington, DC. Entitled 'The Whole Internet Map' these are large map/posters which can be mounted on the wall or under a glass frame for protection which literally show the shortest path between a networked computer in Murray Hill, NJ and the 95,842 networks which make up the internet as of May 3, 1999. The reference is to the global internet register of Merit Network, Inc. The different colors on the map show the internet domains where network switches (routers) are registered. 137 countries are included on the map which then has lines branching away from routers to end points. This is a beautiful map, copyright by Lucent Technology and Telegeography. You may wish to visit http://telegeography.com to see about obtaining a copy for yourself. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:21:22 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Last Laugh! Man Has Bean Where Brain Should Be [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Have you ever wondered about the folks, who because of some cruel twist of fate were born with a bean in their head instead of a brain? Or perhaps they were born with a brain, but because of disuse it atrophies and shrivels up to the size of a bean? Monty Solomon reports ... PAT] =============================== From a story in today's paper ... The new L.L. Bean Kids catalog was distributed with the wrong phone number. An L.L. Bean employee, thinking that toll-free numbers only begin with 800, changed the correct number from 877 LLB KIDS to 800 LLB KIDS. Some company in Virginia was overwhelmed with calls. L.L. Bean is supposedly working on a financial settlement with that company and has arranged to take over the number. Monty [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now we know where the expression 'bean brain' comes from. Thanks for your report, Monty. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #281 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Aug 6 01:31:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA02398; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 01:31:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 01:31:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908060531.BAA02398@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #282 TELECOM Digest Fri, 6 Aug 99 01:31:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 282 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client (Brett Frankenberger) Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client (Steven J. Sobol) A Couple of Questions About Anti-Trust Law and Spam (TELECOM Digest Editor) Unusual Split of NPA 606: Metros Get New NPA (Darren Stuart Embry) Re: Crazy Proposals For 310 Area Code (Adam H. Kerman) Re: The Whole Internet Map (Julius Kusuma) MSNBC Article: Customers Like Calling by Cable (Jack Decker) Internet Taxes (Richard Thomsen) Re: Some Local or LD Calls ... (Bill Levant) Re: The Internet: Then, Now and the Future (J.F. Mezei) Re: FBI Wiretap Worries Slow Satellite Phones (J.F. Mezei) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (John R. Levine) Survey Sees US, Telecom Portals Winners In Europe (Monty Solomon) Area Code Split in NPA 606 (Ed Ellers) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client Date: 6 Aug 1999 02:14:45 GMT Organization: rbfnet In article , Bob Peterson wrote: > brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) wrote: > Pardon me if I substitute UBE (unsolicited bulk email) for "spam." > The UBE, as well as UCE (unsolicited commercial email), terms seem to > me much more precise. Indeed. And thanks for the thought out response, which is light-years ahead of the knee-jerk "you must be an evil spammer if you think it's possible for anything that is anti-spam to be illegal" that I have seen in other forums. Continuing on the trend towards preciseness, the term "RBL" as used below in my response means any list of providers that allegedly relay spam that is used for the purpose of blocking mail. (It stands for "realtime black list", which is what a predecessor of the current Vixie/MAPS project was called. My usage here is much more generic than that, though.) >> (1) Spam is legal. I don't like spam. You don't like spam. Most of >> my friends don't like spam. Most of your friends probably don't like >> spam. But sending, relaying, etc., spam is completely legal. (AFAIK, >> none of the court orders against spammers have related to spamming per >> se. They have all related to things like forged From: addresses.) > Certain actions commonly carried out by the senders of UBE are not > legal, and have been found to constitute trespass. See, for example, > the EarthLink Network vs. Cyber Promotions case (the Earthlink press > release is at http://www.earthlink.net/about/pr/ELN_eats_spammers.html ) > or the Parker v. C.N. Enterprises case (the final court document is at > http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/flowers3.html ). Of course. But the act that typically gets one on blacklists is either (a) selling service to UBE senders, or (b) running an open relay. In the former case, even if you sell service only to UBE senders who act legally, you still get RBL'd. In the latter case, you get RBL'd, even if no UBE ever actually relays through it, and regardless of the legality of any UBE that does relay through it. The flowers.com case you refer to above specifically addressed the issue of sending forged mail with a flowers.com return address. The ruling of the court addressed two major points: (1) The allegedly illegal use of the flowers.com name that was owned by someone other than the UBE sender, and (2) The alleged damage to the computers of flowers.com's ISP caused by all the complaint letters that the forged UBE generated. I'll address #2 later. I conceded the illegality of #1 in my original message; however, the policy of the RBLs is to RBL entities that they deem are sources of UBE, even if none of that UBE has forged headers. I wasn't able to find the actual ruling of the court in the Earthlink case; hoever, the press release made reference to relaying (using Earthlink's systems to send UBE to non-Earthlink addresses) and to forging headers, as well as to the alleged damage to Earthlink's systems. I'll address the latter point below. The forged header issue I addressed above. The unauthorized use of a relay issue is also moot, because if you operate a public relay, and advertise it as such, you will get RBL's, even though any usage of that relay would be legal. > So, one cannot assert that "... sending, relaying, etc., > UBE is completely legal," given at least two different cases in which > judges have ruled the action illegal. That's like saying that one cannot assert that "owning a gun is legal" because judges have ruled that it is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. Yes, judges have consistently ruled that sending UBE with forged headers is illegal, but that doesn't make UBE illegal in the general case, and certainly it wouldn't be legal for a chain of store owners who were anti-gun to band togethor to force any store that sold guns out of business, on the theory that "under some circumstances, guns are illegal". Which brings me to what I think is the central issue here: Is UBE an unlawful tresspass on the computers of the ISP of the recipients of the UBE? That is, if I send large quantities of UBE to subscribers of Joe's ISP, all of said UBE being legal in all other respects (i.e. headers are legit, the content is truthful, etc.), have I tresspassed on Joe's computers? First, the court rulings you have cited are not completely on point. The Flowers case, where I was able to read the ruling, is way off point, because it deals strictly with damages caused by a forged domain name. It does mention damages to the mail-receiving computers and the ISP used by flowers.com, but we're talking about a ton of messages sent to one single address, which was a result of the forged the UBE. That's different than normal UBE, which is one message send to a large number of adresses (maybe send as separate SMTP transactions, but the point it: only one copy per mailbox). Earthlink's press release seems to indicate that the court did accept their arguments with respect to the damage done to the computer that receives the UBE, but we cannot tell from the press release how accepting the judge was of that argument, and what portion, if any, that acceptance played in the judge's decision to issue an injunction. So, while they both mention tresspass, neither is definitively on point about whether or not sending UBE is, in the general case, a tresspass on the computers owned by the ISP of the recipients of the UBE. Furthermore, these are both low-level, unappealed court rulings, brought against spammers without lots of resources by an ISP with considerably more resources. These are not the circumstances under which case law is made. To get a definitive ruling on the legality of spam, we would need a case where both sides were well funded, where the loser appealed, and where the central issue was the tresspass (so we would need a case involving a UBE sender that didn't use forged mail headers). As I said in my original message, I think that, under those circumstances, the ISP is going to have trouble demonstrating signifigant damage to their systems. Absent any signifigant damage, it's going to be hard to argue tresspass, because the reason that the servers exist is to: receive E-Mail. Regardless of that, though, what's really relevant is: How would a federal judge look upon the legality of the business of being an ISP that carries spam. I think that, given limited case law and the presumptive right to compete, the defendants would have a hard time arguing that the business of operating an open relay, and/or selling service to spammers, is unworthly of the protection of federal anti-trust law. I've already said that since NSI doesn't compete with ISPs, I'm not sure they have standing to sue under federal anti-trust law, but if they did compete with ISPs, they would be a good test case, because: They have a lot of resources and might be willing to appeal loss, and they don't forge their From: lines. > At http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/spam_law.html we find an interest- > ing discussion of a Supreme Court decision affirming the constitution- > ality of a law allowing a homeowner to require, via notice through the > Post Office, removal of the homeowner's address from a mailer's > address list. Taken broadly, that decision strongly suggests that the > owner of an email box shares the same right, that is, the right to > freedom from undesired communications. That ruling merely affirmed the constitutionality of a law allowing the post office to require a source of mail to stop sending that mail under certain circumstances. That's not relevant here, because we aren't debating whether or not congress *could* make Spam illegal. We're debating whether or not existing legislation does make it illegal. > That same Web page cites a decision handed down by the Ninth Circuit > Court affirming the constitutionality of the Federal laws prohibiting > unsolicited FAXes, which again _may_ apply to unsolicited email. The law is ambiguous on this point, and the legislative history is almost certainly going to suggest that congress did not intend to ban commercial E-Mail. Absent a precedent to the contrary, I do not believe that this law is applicable, regardless of conveniently broad interpretations that people dream up. (Can I attach a fax machine to my mailbox, and then use this law against people who snail-mail me commercial advertisements?) > Given the above, especially the Earthlink case and the similar > Compuserve case in which the act of sending volumes of email was found > to be trespass, your initial assertion that unsolicited email is legal > fails. And the Supreme and Circuit court decisions strongly suggest > that private individuals have the right to not only refuse commercial > speech, but to require the speaker (be the speech surface mail or FAX) > to stop. Existing case law, unappealed as it is, is not on point, because in every case I've seen, (and www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/spam.html has a lot), the plaintiffs made forged From: lines an issue. The Supreme Court rulings merely affirm that commercial speech in many contexts is not protected by the First Amendment. That doesn't make it illegal, and it doesn't make it OK to businesses to act in concert to stop it, and it doesn't confer any right to stop such communication. It merely makes it legal for congress to ban it, if they so desire. >> It seems to me that, by subscribing to the RBL, a group of competitors >> (ISPs who subscribe to the RBL) are acting in concert to harm some of >> their competitors (ISPs who relay Spam.) > Did the group of competitors band together to force a competitor out > of business, or to force a competitior to act in a legal manner? Is > cooperating to prevent acts of trespass a violation of anti-trust law? In some cases, it may be, but lets assume that the answer is no. It turns out not to matter. What we have isn't cooperation to prevent trespass. What we have is cooperation to prevent (in the general case) UBE, some of which, in some cases, under some circumstances, in some jurisdictions, has been held to be a trespass. > If one takes the position that most UBE is illegal either because of > the trespass of relays or because of the unauthorized use of domain > names, and observing that the RBL contains the addresses of computers > repeatedly used, directly or indirectly, to support sending of UBE and > thus supporting an illegal act, and also observing that removal from > the RBL is accomplished by showing that support of UBE and, hence, > illegal activity, has ended, then successful suit of the anti-trust > accusation would seem to require the court to support an illegal > activity. Not necessarily. There's a lot of leaps of faith above. Remember that almost all UBE, at some point, travels over fiber optic cables owned by major long-distance carrier. Would it be legal for all the carriers to collude to force Sprint out of business on the theory that they carry illegal spam? Certainly not. At some point, companies do in fact get to disclaim responsibility for the contents of the bits they transport. Furthermore, it's not clear to me that anti-trust law contains an exception that would allow providers to act in concert to harm a competitor who operates a device (a public relay) which is sometimes (but not exclusively) used to do carry something (UBE) which is sometimes (even usually), but not always, illegal. -- Brett ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client Date: 6 Aug 1999 00:40:06 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 07:43:14 -0500, Randal.Hayes@uni.edu allegedly said: > Brett noted: > "Spam is legal ..." > You might want to check recent legislative efforts in various states, > as in Iowa, legislation went into effect July 1st to make spamming > illegal. Being a boardmember of an Anti-Spam organization, I am well aware of initiatives in many states, and laws that have been passed in California, Washington and Virginia. But I *haven't* heard about Iowa! URL, please? Thanks :) North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org It really bothers me that there is an IRC channel called #jarjarsex. ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: A Couple of Questions About Anti-Trust Law and Spam Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 23:00:00 EDT First off, a sincere thank you to Brett Frankenberger, Bob Peterson, Steve Sobol and others who have contributed to this thread, making I believe, this issue of the Digest to be one of the most interesting in a long time. For those who have suggested that sysadmins acting in concert against spammers by using the 'blackhole list' and similar communications among themselves to prevent spam from transiting their networks may be violating anti-trust law, I have a question. At what point does an exchange of free speech among a group of persons who find themselves in agreement on some matter become 'collusion' or a 'conspiracy' among them to put someone out of business? For example, if I in this column print the name of a site which sends out spam, and I use an exercise of free speech to give my opinion of the site, and I advise my readers 'I do not intend to accept any email sent out from that site', is it a violation of anti-trust if several or all of my readers agree with my speech and **quite on their own volition** also take measures to prevent that site's mail from getting through? It certainly would seem to be a violation of anti-trust if there were a formal group of admins who agreed among themselves that whatever one of them (their appointed leader, let's say) instructed them to do, they would all do. So their leader says 'now we are going to block all traffic from Cyberpromotions' and all the admins receive instruc- tions on how this is to be done, and they all do it at their sites, either secretly or quite openly. I would call that a violation of anti-trust, even though generally I do not like anti-trust laws. But consider my first example: some long-time, respected netizen does an exercise of free speech condemning one or more spammers by name and describes his method for dealing with it. Others listen (or more appropriately in this medium, read) the speech and say to themselves, 'he has a very good idea, I think I will try to operate my site in the same way he operates his' ... with the end result, quite coincidentally being that now Cyberpromotions has been blockaded at that and other sites as well. Is this also a violation of anti-trust? How can an exercise of free speech, i.e. a list of sites whose outgoing email is considered undesirable or a list of sites who have chosen to have open relays, where others simply agree with the speech and choose on their own to administer their sites in similar fashion be considered a violation of law? Don't admins have the right to communicate among themselves and share their ideas on the best way to operate or maintain their site? Lacking some explicit agreement between them that what one does the others will also do is it the fault of any one or more of them if their speech has influenced others to respond in the same way? Do the member merchants of a 'Better Business Bureau' in your community violate the anti-trust laws or conspire to put another merchant out of business when they condemn his business practices or are they merely attempting to get the offending merchant to conform with accepted business practices in the community? When they exercise their free speech by listing their own members and failing to include the bad merchant (thus making it obvious to an inquiring member of the public where they should, and should not go to shop) are the group merchants listed 'conspiring' against the bad merchant in an unlawful way? If a group of businesses join in a BBB association, they sign an actual membership agreement, which includes their promise to abide by certain rules. If they cannot be said to be in violation of anti- trust by encouraging the public to visit them instead of an offending merchant, then how can an institution or organization which operates a computer network and has absolutely no formal agreements with any other such network be in anti-trust violation when they both happen by coincidence to agree upon the same basic principles for operating their network? BBB agreements include rules that all members must follow which if not followed do not constitute an illegal act, but are none the less considered by BBB members to be unethical. Can the offending merchant claim anti-trust when BBB using its free speech points out his -- not illegal, just unethical -- practices and encourages people to shop elsewhere among their members instead? Does Paul Vixie (just to use him as an example) say to recipients of his list "you must obey everything I say, and operate your computer in the way I say or you will also be listed in the black hole?" Or does he exercise free speech in publishing a list which other admins are free to use as advisories in maintaining their own sites? Is the intent of the black hole to put one ISP out of business to the commercial advantage of other ISP's or is it merely to publicize the practices of the offending ISP and convince him through our speech to conform his behavior to established netiquette? Does the BBB ever refuse to let any merchant become a member as long as he observes the rules? Do you think any ISP or admin gives a damn what other ISP happens to be 'out there' as long as netiquette is observed? In other words guys, where/when do claims of anti-trust violations take precedence over the right of people on the net to speak with one another and reach the same decisions regarding their site? And lastly, when I hook up my computer to the internet, do I have an automatic claim on your resources to the extent I need for any email I wish to send, especially when you and I have never once talked about it, have never even met each other and likely never will meet? Says who? As long as this Digest has been around, I would never once claim I had the right to put it in the mailboxes on a site where the admin did not want me there. I have never once considered myself to be anything other than a guest at LCS/MIT with no rights to traffic on anyone's site where I am not welcome. Too bad spammers don't understand it the same way I do. Of course, one person's spam is another person's Digest, and vice-versa. I get perfectly atrocious stuff in the mail each day where I am sure, to be charitable about it, the person probably spent hours working on it, was proud of his work and felt it had every right to go all over. Sort of how I feel about my mailings each day. It does seem to me to be quite a stretch of the imagination to try and use anti-trust laws, which were written for other purposes entirely as a way of saying distasteful email has to be accepted. And I realize fully the logic of what I am saying. If even a half-dozen major sites on the net decided starting tomorrow they were not going to pass my traffic, that would effectively be the end of the mailing list. But that would be *my* problem, not theirs. How can anyone force others to accept them when they are not wanted? Spammers seem to feel they can. PAT ------------------------------ From: dsembr01@ox.slug.louisville.edu (Darren Stuart Embry) Subject: Unusual Split of NPA 606: Metros Get New NPA Date: 5 Aug 1999 18:27:41 GMT Organization: University of Louisville The Kentucky Public Service Commission announced yesterday that the 606 Area Code serving Lexington, Northern Kentucky, and the eastern portion of the state will get a new (as of yet undetermined) area code number next year. Permissive dialing will start April 2000, with mandatory dialing in October 2000. The geographic split will assign the new area code to Lexington and Northern Kentucky, the opposite of the general trend of assigning the new area code OUTSIDE of the major metropolitan areas. The PSC's justification for the decision to let the economically depressed eastern Kentucky region keep the old area code is that assigning a new area code to eastern Kentucky would further disrupt its already depressed economy, while the economy of the metro areas of Lexington and Northern Kentucky is better able to withstand changing to a new area code. The Lexington Herald-Leader also has an article on this announcement at . I was not able to find any news about the NPA 606 split on the North American Numbering Plan Administration's web site yet. More Darren Stuart Embry, less talk. http://www.slug.louisville.edu/~dsembr01/ 27 October 1999 --- IT'S TIME! --- Ask me for details. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please explain 'Its Time' on October 27. I think I know already, but others would be interested. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Crazy Proposals For 310 Area Code Organization: Chinet - Public Access since 1982 Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 19:12:37 GMT Linc Madison wrote: > I have been in e-mail contact with some of the folks fighting against > the 310/424 overlay in Los Angeles. They remain adamant that it is not > too late to prevent the overlay, although the CPUC seems to have dashed > that hope on Tuesday. The simple reality is that, even if the best > conceivable system of number conservation were implemented tomorrow, it > would be too late to stop the 310 overlay. Why do you make that assumption? NPA 847, serving Chicago's north and northwest suburbs, was merely weeks away from exhaustion. The Illinois Commerce Commission issued the order to implement number pooling, forcing return of all unassigned 1000 blocks of line numbers held by the LEC and CLECS to the pool for reassignment by the LEC or CLEC as needed. Magically, the NPA 847 exhaust date was moved well into the future. The Ill.C.C. is a typical cowardly regulatory agency, no better and no worse than those found in other states. But this time it caved in to consumer pressure and called the industry's bluff. There was no crisis. Remember, the industry wasn't only proposing one new NPA, but three. One would have overlayed 847, one would have overlayed 630 and 708, and the third would have overlayed 773 and 312. Eight NPAs where once there was only one! The state decided that Chicago could survive with the mere five already assigned. No, it's never too late for the CPUC to examine the issue with open eyes and make a determination on its merits. I'm sure Los Angeles has implemented number portability? Then take advantage of it and begin number pooling. Has the CPUC even bothered to order the LECs and CLECs to disclose how many unassigned line numbers they hold? Time to take head out of ass. No more decision making in the dark. ------------------------------ From: Julius Kusuma Subject: Re: The Whole Internet Map Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 15:55:49 -0700 Organization: Texas Instruments PAT, the correct URL is http://www.telegeography.com, although for some reason it's available at http://www.peacockmaps.com instead of telegeography. When you get to peacockmaps, click on "show me more" and you'll see the "The Whole Internet" poster. Too bad it's pretty steep at $50 :( :( :(. julius [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anyway, everyone go to the above site and look at the beautiful 'The Whole Internet' poster. Yeah, it is a little expensive, but they sent me a couple of them by courier service and they arrived this morning to my delight. I have them on the walls here in my dreary little room, and they brighten things up very nicely. They arrived very safely in a cardboard tube, nicely rolled up and in very good condition. You will *not* believe the complexity of the map drawing showing all the router names and numbers until you see it personally. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 18:20:01 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: MSNBC Article: Customers Like Calling by Cable Customers like calling by cable Local telephone companies have something to fear, satisfaction survey shows Full article at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/297270.asp You will want to read this online because there is a graphic (a chart) showing which phone companies got the highest and lowest ratings in customer satisfaction. The top three were BellSouth, SNET, and "Cable Telephony", while the bottom three were U.S. West, Sprint, and Citizens. Strangely, PacBell got a moderately high rating (105), but parent company Southwestern Bell got a somewhat lower rating (94, the same as Ameritech and GTE). And speaking of GTE, customers of that company may have something to look forward to if the merger with Bell Atlantic goes through - BA's rating was 104, a full ten points above GTE. All of these numbers are based on an "industry average" of 100. ------------------------------ From: Richard Thomsen Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:34:04 -0600 Subject: Internet Taxes I know it sounds like an urban legend hoax, but I just saw this on the InforWorld scoop, dated today, 5 August 1999. "The Sales Tax Safety and Teacher Funding Act was recently introduced by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.). If approved, the bill would impose a retail and excise tax of 5 percent on goods sold over the telephone, through catalogues, and via the Internet, said Maury Lane, a spokesman for Hollings. For the full story: http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?99084.iitaxes.htm" Richard Thomsen ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 20:40:11 EDT Subject: Re: Some Local or LD Calls... > So, are you saying that 1+10D local and metro/metered calls during that > time were routing/billing properly via BA? And if you kept BA as your > primary inTRA-LATA toll carrier, that 1+10D for such calls routed to BA? > Also, please refresh me here... When the problem was happening with > "straight" 10D local and metered/metro, was BA handing the calls over to > your primary inTER-LATA carrier or (if you didn't choose BA) your primary > inTRA-LATA carrier? 10D (with or without 1+) was routing correctly for calls into the 215 area code; the screwed up translations were for some new CLEC exchanges IN MY OWN 610 AREA CODE (and in fact, local to me) that, when dialed with 10D (instead of 7D) misrouted to the IXC. I don't know what would have happened with 1+10D, as I wasn't dialing home NPA calls that way at that time. BA is my local toll (intra-lata) carrier, but they were handing off to the IXC. Bill ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: The Internet: Then, Now and the Future Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 20:45:33 -0400 Interesting reading. However, perhaps changing the title to "The Internet in the USA: Then, now and the Future" might be more appropriate ? Or providing some history as to when/how other countries started to interconnect with the US internet. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Worries Slow Satellite Phones Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 20:56:39 -0400 Monty Solomon wrote: > The FBI and other U.S. law enforcement agencies are worried that new > space-based telephone systems, which theoretically allow a person to > use a wireless phone from virtually anywhere on earth, will undermine > their ability to wiretap telephone calls Whoopty doo. Are they worried about the fact that they can't listen to every private conversation between people whispering to each other? Are they worried that they cannot listen to conversations between people in totally separate countries? Are they worried that they cannot read every bit of paper or electronic mail circulating in the world? I think that the FBI has to wake-up and smell the coffee. In the information age, they just won't be able to listen to everything. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Any overflow that they are unable to listen to will be forbidden to be spoken. And they don't want to hear any whispering, either. I am reminded of how on America On Line about five or six years ago, when the FBI began routine monitoring of the chat rooms and email with Steve Case's blessings, the FBI ran into a little problem: the volume of email to go through was overwhelming them. So what they did was ask Steve Case -- or maybe they just told him; they do have ways to keep him in line -- to deal with it. AOL's response was to remove the 'delete mail' icon and disable that function for users. When a user finished reading email and wanted to get rid of it, a little message came on the screen saying, 'AOL takes care of getting rid of mail from time to time so you won't have to bother with it. Therefore we have disabled the 'delete mail' function. We will remove it for you later.' Then once the FBI got caught up on their reading and had a new fresh list of users to try and entrap for one reason or another suddenly the mail would vanish from your mailbox. AOL of course tried to make it appear to users that they were now offering this great new feature where the user no longer had to bother with the 'complicated task' of deleting mail; that it was being done to make AOL easier to use, etc. Now we know of course that just because mail is 'deleted' from the local files of a user it can still hang around on a spool elsewhere for however long but I think the FBI needed to have it actually in possession of the user (meaning on a directory the user could access) in the event when they read it and it was something they wanted to hassle the user about, they could 'prove' he had it in his possession, and that it was not just a file with the user's name attached to it but outside the user's reach, i.e. not in his possession. So if there gets to be an overflow of phone calls the FBI cannot keep up with, they will probably just require telco to record the conversations and forward them at regular intervals. If any users notice this happening, telco will describe it as a new service offering; we automatically record the phone call so you don't have to worry about taking notes or keeping track of it. And after some period of time, we will automatically erase the tape for you. And its a free service to you from your telco. Aren't they nice people! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 1999 21:03:29 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I *still* haven't heard a sensible argument against toll alerting. Because it wastes people's time. When I make a phone call, I want to make a phone call, and I don't care if it's a 5 cpm "local" call or a 7 cpm "toll" call. When I lived in the Boston area, to make phone calls I had to memorize which prefixes within 617 were "toll" from where I lived and which were "local" to call them, even though the cost difference was negligible and during nights and weekends the "toll" places cost less to call than many of the "local" ones. Millions of people in urban states including New York, New Jersey, and California have never had toll alerting, and despite the moaning and groaning from people who've never lived there, it's not a problem. We make phone calls. We do just fine. Note that 1+ toll alerting isn't a panacea either, since in Boston, for example, with typical residential service some "local" calls you dial with seven digits are free, while others cost 5 cpm. If I were spending two hrs/day on-line, that's an extra $180/mo phone bill. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 21:58:14 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Survey Sees US, Telecom Portals Winners In Europe PARIS (Reuters) - Only some American firms or cash-rich telecoms operators will survive in the fight to become a leading Web portal for the European market, according to market researcher Forrester Research. A number of European-based portals will be unable to weather the years of losses, Forrester's European arm said in a report made available to Reuters this week. http://news.lycos.com/stories/Technology/Internet/19990804RTNET-WEB-TELECOM.asp ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Area Code Split in NPA 606 Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 22:18:15 -0400 The Kentucky Public Service Commission has dropped the other shoe by announcing a split of NPA 606, which presently includes approximately the eastern half of the state. Unlike most splits (including the recent split of NPA 502), this time the area including two large metropolitan areas (Lexington and the suburbs of Cincinnati) will get the new, so far undisclosed NPA in order to allow the poorer counties of eastern Kentucky to avoid the costs of an area code change. Permissive dialing is scheduled for April, with mandatory dialing to begin in October 2000. One interesting aspect of this split is that, apparently because of the recent bloody battle against an overlay in NPA 502, the overlay option appears to have been ignored in this case. It's pretty clear that most Kentuckians oppose mandatory 10D dialing. The (Louisville) Courier-Journal story is at http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/1999/9908/05/990805code.html. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #282 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Aug 6 13:02:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA22435; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 13:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 13:02:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908061702.NAA22435@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #283 TELECOM Digest Fri, 6 Aug 99 13:02:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 283 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Fundamentals of Telecommunications" (Rob Slade) E-Commerce: Suggestion For Merchant Identification (J.F. Mezei) Free ISPs. Hype, Misunderstanding or Real Business? (J.F. Mezei) Re: The Whole Internet Map (Fred Atkinson) Re: The Whole Internet Map (Stan U.) Re: The Whole Internet Map (Tim Tsai) Spam Blocking (Joey Lindstrom) Re: A Couple of Questions About Anti-Trust Law and Spam (William Hay) Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client (Gerry Belanger) Analog Cell Phone Roaming (Jim Hornbeck) Re: Making "Real Time" FOIP Services A Reality (Robert A. Rosenberg) Iridium in Default, Key Lender Claims (Monty Solomon) US West In Court Over ISDN Net Service Speeds (Monty Solomon) Re: Last Laugh! Man Has Been Where Brain Should Be (Sean Maher) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 08:54:02 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Fundamentals of Telecommunications", Roger L. Freeman Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKFNTELC.RVW 990514 "Fundamentals of Telecommunications", Roger L. Freeman, 1999, 0-471-29699-6 %A Roger L. Freeman %C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8 %D 1999 %G 0-471-29699-6 %I John Wiley & Sons, Inc. %O 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 rlangloi@wiley.com %P 676 p. %T "Fundamentals of Telecommunications" A footnote to the first paragraph in chapter one put me somewhat at ease. If somebody knows that there is more than one "billion" in the world, it bodes very well for the technical accuracy of the following material. This book is intended as an introductory, and entry level, text on telecommunications. It covers the field, but does not require engineering level math or physics. For those with a weak background in mathematics or electricity, some material is provided in appendices. Chapter one covers introductory concepts, but jumps around a fair bit in doing so. Data signalling is dealt with in chapter two (and from the description of semaphore, we know that the author was never a Boy Scout). Quality of service, and signal, is discussed in chapter three. Chapter four looks at the network basics of transmission and switching. Transmission for voice telephony gets special consideration in chapter five. Chapter six talks about some physical level protocols, which doesn't quite explain the title of "Digital Networking." Chapter seven details network control signalling. Long haul network components are reviewed in chapter eight while the specifics of the transmission segments are in chapter nine. Data communications gets a bit of a late start in chapter ten, but the basics are all there. Chapter eleven presents local area networks as the first half of a look at enterprise networks, and continues with wide area networks in chapter twelve. The unique aspects of signalling system number 7 are outlined in chapter thirteen. Coverage of television transmission, in chapter fourteen, is quite detailed. Chapter fifteen looks at cable television systems, and also briefly at the requirements for two way transmission. Cellular, PCS (Personal Communications Services), and wireless are discussed in chapter sixteen. High bit rate optical links, in chapter seventeen, concentrate on SONET (Synchronous Optical Network) and related protocols. Chapter eighteen looks at ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode). The questions and exercises at the end of the chapter are not the best I've ever seen, but not the worst either. They tend to ask students to pull mere definitions from the text, but some do require a bit of analysis. References tend to be protocols or standards specifications, and there are few citations of more generally available works. With the exception of framing diagrams, the illustrations are not very illuminating, and are frequently mislabelled. The structure of the book, while not exactly disorganized, does tend to jump from topic to topic and back again. There is a heavy emphasis on telephony, and, despite the very successful limitation of prerequisite requirements, a definite engineering tone and bias. Still, the fundamentals are all here, and, in the hands of a good teacher, this work could be quite successful. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKFNTELC.RVW 990514 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com I won't stand for it, and I'm not going to take it lying down, so I guess I'll just have to sit it out. - Larry Wall http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: E-Commerce: Suggestion For Merchant Identification Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 02:52:30 -0400 During a recent long bicycle ride, I came to think about the e-commerce debate that occured here recently. I believe that the solution would be for VISA, Mastercard and AMEX (and discover in the USA) to provide some sort of merchant authentification service. For instance, I get to www.buyrasberries.com, prior to committing to a purchase, I click on something which opens a window where merchant information COMING FROM A BANK/CREDIT CARD COMANY is displayed to authenticate that merchant. For instance: Any e-commerce merchant would be required to register all their domain names with their own bank. That information , along with the merchant information would be made accessible to the main credit card centre (for instance VISA Intl in San Francisco , or Mastercard Intl in St-Louis). As a user, I them go to VISA or mastercard and request information on merchant www.buy-rasberries.com .This way, I can verify the location and information on that merchant (and what other names he operates under). A good merchant would probably make available a link on his website that will pop up the transaction to/from VISA to display his "pedigree" directly. The biggest advantage of this system is that users from anywhere in the world would be able to know in which country the merchant really operates in. It would also provide the potential customer with a warm/fuzzy feeling that the merchant meets minimum standards in that country to obtain credit card facilities. (or that the merchant is based in a country known for sleezy operators). As an added tidbit: For the VISA DEBIT Card in the USA, the official line is that your purchase is taken out of your chequing account "typically within one day". In Canada, transactions are instant for both the clustomer and merchant, and one uses his/her regular ATM card. As well, in Canada, merchants can and do act as ATM machines. You can buy some goodies but request that they take out more money of your account and give you the change in cash. (eg: buy $11.00 worth of good, but make EFTPOS transaction $25.00 and merchant then gives you $14 in change). To the merchant, such transaction is the equivalent of moving $14.00 from his cash register to his bank account without having to move that cash to the bank. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei Subject: Free ISPs. Hype, Misunderstanding or Real Business? Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 03:02:59 -0400 OK, a few started to have "free PC" in exchange for promise to view X number of internet ads each month (I assume that access to internet is free). Now, Microsoft is threatening to kill AOL (or so the media say) by providing a free ISP nationwide in the USA. I get the impression that the media confuse ISP and "portals". Do ISPs such as AOL actually change the content of HTML pages you fetch? (eg: AOL customer in USA fetches www.cbc.ca (in canada). Does AOL actually add advertising to the html www.cbc.ca sends back? I do not see how an ISP can actually make money while offering free access. Do the majority (masses) really use those portals or do they use their own bookmarks to go directly to places they need? And of those that regularly use portals, do they use their ISP's portal or another portal such as www.yahoo.com or whatever other portals are around? I use Alta-Vista for search purposes only. I have a blank page as "start-up page". Is that not how most people operate? Sometimes, I really wonder if I am the one who doesn't understand how the internet works, or if it is the media. Or does the majority of the uneducated masses really use the internet as the media report it while a minority use the internet as it was meant to be? ------------------------------ From: Fred Atkinson Subject: Re: The Whole Internet Map Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 08:10:17 -0400 Pat, I saw your note about 'The Whole Internet Map'. I thought that the URL was: 'http://www.teleography.com', but apparently it was the wrong address. Worse than that, I'd already deleted the message. Can you give me that URL again? Fred [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Try www.telegeography.com. In other words, swap the 'o' and the 'g' and add an extra 'e'. My bean must have been not quite up to speed at the time I wrote that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stanri@yahooREMOVETHISPART.com (Stan U.) Subject: Re: The Whole Internet Map Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 13:52:36 GMT Organization: @Home Network Pat ... Maybe I got the wrong site. The address you gave http://telegeography.com didn't work, but www.telegeography.com did. And if I did reach the same site your talking about, you forgot to add one "minor" thing. The map costs $125 for a folded copy, and $155 for a rolled version. It looks like a nice map, that would look great hanging here on my office wall ... but at that price, my wall will be naked for a long time. Stan Like everyone else, I hate spam. To reply, remove the "REMOVETHISPART" from the email address. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There was no mention of any price at all in the rolled maps (they sent me two) that I received. Just copies of the map, and a note saying 'please accept with our compliments'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 02:28:55 -0500 From: Tim Tsai Subject: Re: The Whole Internet Map On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 12:48:35PM -0400, TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > This is a beautiful map, copyright by Lucent Technology and Telegeography. > You may wish to visit http://telegeography.com to see about obtaining > a copy for yourself. I think you mean http://www.telegeography.com. What was that about brains and beans? :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) Tim [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Due to the heat here in our part of the country, my bean had already gotten baked and was not functioning as beans should. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 01:28:48 -0600 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Spam Blocking I gotta go with Pat on this one ... it seems to me a stretch to say that I'm participating in some sort of illegal conspiracy (thank God I live in Canada and am not subject to this weird US law) when I decide to block particular domains from sending email to my server. In fact, I've only done this once, and was later able to remove the block once the ISP in question got his house in order. But the simple fact is that this server is owned and operated by yours truly, and I (and only I) will determine whether or not I'll accept email from a particular domain. If someone wants to get in touch with me that badly, and I've blocked his/her domain, they can snailmail me. I owe nobody anything here, and nobody has the RIGHT to stuff spam in my mailbox. If I choose to subscribe to one of these "black hole" lists to get information about who the bad guys are this week, that's my business. Am I "hurting" you and your customers because you can't send email to me and my customers? I'd argue that I'm not, but even if I stipulate this ... TOUGH BEANS. Sending mail to my servers is a privilege, not a right, and that's something spammers (and some ISP's) don't seem to understand. That privilege can be revoked. It's my property, after all. I think the only issue here, really, is the collusion thing. And as has been pointed out, it's only collusion if a large block of people get together and decide we'll all do whatever the entire group decides we'll do. If I subscribe to one of these black hole lists, I'm not prevented from perusing the list and deciding, "hmmm, I see my good friends over at somedomain.com are listed here ... but they're my buddies, so I'll UNBLOCK them". I won't be penalized for "opting out", therefore there's no collusion. Because it's optional, there's nothing mandatory, collusion is difficult (if not impossible) to prove. Thus, case closed. But y'know what's gonna happen ... some REALLY SMALL ISP is gonna get sued by some REALLY BIG ISP and, because of a lack of resources, will lose and won't be able to afford an appeal. And then we'll be in the soup. From the messy desktop of Joey Lindstrom Email: Joey@GaryNumanFan.NU or joey@lindstrom.com Phone: +1 403 313-JOEY FAX: +1 413 643-0354 (yes, 413 not 403) Visit The NuServer! http://www.GaryNumanFan.NU Visit The Webb! http://webb.GaryNumanFan.NU "Never miss a staff meeting." --Everything I Need To Know I Learned From Babylon 5 ------------------------------ From: William Hay Subject: Re: A Couple of Questions About Anti-Trust Law and Spam Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:16:27 +0800 Organization: Pacific Supernet Limited As a lawyer (although not an antitrust specialist), I don't agree that anti-spam activities pose an antitrust problem. Here's why. ISPs are private companies, like newspapers and television stations. They do not have any obligation to transmit email from their customers or to allow email to transit their sites (unless they have contracts that require them to do so). Therefore, unless some other rule applies, they can do whatever they like with email. Examples of other rules that might apply are those involving discrimin- ation (e.g., "I won't transmit email from black people") and the like -- although even this might be legal (remember the fuss over segregated country clubs, which was resolved more by public pressure than by law). Another rule might be monopoly over the electronic superhighway (remember that AT&T, gas pipelines, bus companies, airlines and other public utilities have common carrier status, which prohibit them from discriminating against classes of customers). But there are lots of ISPs out there -- and no one has suggested that the web itself should be a common carrier (probably because there is no such thing as "the web"). Although there is a lot of debate over the scope of the antitrust laws, there is general agreement that antitrust laws are intended to protect consumers and producers against business conduct that disrupts the operation of free markets. People are mad at Microsoft for allegedly refusing to license Windows to PC makers unless they agree to ship all PCs with Windows, for instance -- thus raising a bar to competing operating systems through the popularity of Windows. It's hard to see how spammers can make a complaint that they have a right to deposit oceans of email with an ISP, or how blocking that would hurt a free market (remember, they've got a right to write their spam, but they have no right to make you read it, or to force the newspaper to print it). I could see a possible antitrust problem if, say, an ISP owned by a content provider was to block the transmission of another provider's content, but (by analogy to Microsoft), only if that ISP so dominated the market that blocking was tantamount to shutting the other provider out of the market altogether. But even that would be a reach under current law (we'll see what happens in the MS case). To sum up, because ISPs are private organizations and because spammers don't have the right to make you read their stuff, there should be no problem with blocking known spammers -- even if it is done by agreement among many ISPs. Will ------------------------------ From: wa1hoz@javanet.com (Gerry Belanger) Subject: Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 16:02:55 GMT In article , sjsobol@NorthShore Technologies.net (Steven J Sobol) wrote: > On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 07:43:14 -0500, Randal.Hayes@uni.edu allegedly said: > Being a boardmember of an Anti-Spam organization, I am well aware of > initiatives in many states, and laws that have been passed in California, > Washington and Virginia. But I *haven't* heard about Iowa! > URL, please? I don't know about Iowa, but Connecticut has a brand new law: http://www.cga.state.ct.us/olr/1999pas/160.htm Gerry Belanger, WA1HOZ wa1hoz@javanet.com Newtown, CT g.belanger@ieee.org ------------------------------ From: Jim Hornbeck Subject: Analog Cell Phone Roaming Date: 6 Aug 1999 16:09:11 GMT Organization: Netcom I travel a lot outside of the major metropolitan areas. So I've kept my three watt analog phone in the car. Is there a way to lessen the roaming and LD charges without switching to a digital phone? I know that the new digital phone will switch to analog if it can't find a digital cell but the power stays very low. Airtouch tells me that in order to get the new rate to eliminate the roam and LD charges I must have a phone with a digital ESN. Is there a way around this? I'd like to survive another year or so till the satellites get up there and allow reliable connections at low power. TIA, jim horn@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 22:15:45 -0400 From: Robert A. Rosenberg Subject: Re: Making "Real Time" FOIP Services A Reality On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 at 21:48:18 +0200, Jan Ceuleers wrote: > krish_iyer wrote: >> The third factor was the requirement of controlled bandwidth (at least >> 64 kbps) to make Real Time Fax transmission a possibility. > I don't know why you say that 64 kbit/s bandwidth is needed to support > real-time fax transmission. There is no such requirement. 9600 bit/s is > all that is needed. (Provided we understand each other as to what > 'real-time' means. My interpretation is that it is _not_ a > store-and-forward system. That is: the fax machines at either end talk > T.30 to each other, albeit through intermediate devices that reduce the > bandwidth requirements possibly at the cost of a small added delay that > remains within the timing constraints of T.30). [snip] > In order to show this, I can even point to an implementation that has > existed for many years: the real-time fax relaying capabilities of DCME > (digital circuit-multiplication equipment). These devices are normally > deployed on long-haul transmission links. They are used to reduce the > bandwidth requirements of the various types of traffic that they > transport: voice is compressed; fax is demodulated, sent digitally at > 9600 bit/s across the long-haul link and remodulated at the other end; Why the 9600bps restrition (in both cases) not the 14.4Kbps needed to support V17 Fax? You are throttling Fax machines that would establish 14.4 conntetions over POTs connections to 9.6 connections. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 23:27:41 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Iridium in Default, Key Lender Claims IRIDIUM IN DEFAULT, KEY LENDER CLAIMS $300 MILLION GUARANTEE SOUGHT FROM MOTOROLA By Andrew Zajac Tribune Staff Writer August 5, 1999 As mid-month deadlines for bailing out Iridium LLC approach, a key bank has cranked up pressure on lead investor Motorola Inc. to cobble together a restructuring of the floundering satellite phone project. http://chicagotribune.com/business/businessnews/article/0,2669,SAV-9908050261,FF.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 23:45:15 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: US West In Court Over ISDN Net Service Speeds DENVER, COLORADO, U.S.A., 1999 AUG 3 (Newsbytes) -- By Steve Gold, newsbytes. Michael Lair, an executive with ConsumerDefense.com, has started a class action in the Washington state court over US West's [NYSE:USW] alleged deception over the speeds achievable on its ISDN OnePak Classic ISDN (integrated services digital network) service. http://www.andovernews.com/cgi-bin/news_story.pl?20918/topstories ------------------------------ From: Sean Maher Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Man Has Bean Where Brain Should Be Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 16:26:49 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > An L.L. Bean employee, thinking that toll-free numbers only begin with > 800, changed the correct number from 877 LLB KIDS to 800 LLB KIDS. > Some company in Virginia was overwhelmed with calls. L.L. Bean is > supposedly working on a financial settlement with that company and has > arranged to take over the number. Is it just me, or does this seem like a possible way for a large company to "hijack" a toll free number that you want? You "accidentally" publish it as your own number, and your target is flooded with calls that cost them money, both for the line and for the harried people who answer it. You then offer your target a large sum to rectify your mistake and take over the line? Not that I think this particular case was intentional, because LL Bean probably lost sales by publishing the wrong number and may have opened themselves up for a lawsuit, right? Sean Maher sean@smasher.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A lot of people would not give up the number. I know I would not. I would bill the company for the expense involved in the whole matter, but I would not give them the number. I would let them reprint their catalog instead. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #283 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Aug 7 15:07:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id PAA05674; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 15:07:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 15:07:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908071907.PAA05674@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #284 TELECOM Digest Sat, 7 Aug 99 15:07:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 284 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Free ISPs. Hype, Misunderstanding or Real Business? (Barry Margolin) Re: Free ISPs. Hype, Misunderstanding or Real Business? (Anthony Argyriou) Re: Area Code Split in NPA 606 (William H. Bowen) Re: Spam Blocking (James Bellaire) Re: FBI Wiretap Worries Slow Satellite Phones (John Nagle) Re: FBI Wiretap Worries Slow Satellite Phones (nntp.cig.mot.com) Re: The Whole Internet Map (Brad Houser) Cleveland Free-Net is Shutting Down (Dave Grebe) Re: US West In Court Over ISDN Net Service Speeds (Steven J. Sobol) Re: No PIC Selection Question (dmet) Telco Recordings Tie up Answering Machines (LGRL of Texas) Re: Channelized DS3 (Matthew Black) Re: FBI Wiretap Worries Slow Satellite Phones (Dale Neiburg) Re: E-Commerce: Suggestion For Merchant Identification (Bob Goudreau) Re: Analog Cell Phone Roaming (73115.1041@compuserve.com) Re: Last Laugh! Man Has Bean Where Brain Should Be (Daniel Ganek) Re: Last Laugh! Man Has Bean Where Brain Should Be (Bart Z. Lederman) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Free ISPs. Hype, Misunderstanding or Real Business? Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 17:38:12 GMT In article , J.F. Mezei wrote: > OK, a few started to have "free PC" in exchange for promise to view X > number of internet ads each month (I assume that access to internet is > free). > Now, Microsoft is threatening to kill AOL (or so the media say) by > providing a free ISP nationwide in the USA. > I get the impression that the media confuse ISP and "portals". Do > ISPs such as AOL actually change the content of HTML pages you fetch? > (eg: AOL customer in USA fetches www.cbc.ca (in canada). Does AOL > actually add advertising to the html www.cbc.ca sends back? I imagine AOL is paid to put links on their pages, and may also receive payments based on click-throughs. > And of those that regularly use portals, do they use their ISP's > portal or another portal such as www.yahoo.com or whatever other > portals are around? I'm sure there are quite a few of both. In many cases, it probably depends on how the users got their browser software. Many ISPs distribute disks containing customized browsers -- the main customi- zation is to make the default homepage be the ISP's portal rather than home.netscape.com (for Netscape) and www.microsoft.com (for IE). Some PC vendors have entered into alliances with ISPs, and probably include browsers that default to the ISP's portal. > I use Alta-Vista for search purposes only. I have a blank page as > "start-up page". Is that not how most people operate? Me too. But we're "power users" who don't need the ISP's help to find things. > Sometimes, I really wonder if I am the one who doesn't understand how > the internet works, or if it is the media. Or does the majority of the > uneducated masses really use the internet as the media report it while > a minority use the internet as it was meant to be? I suspect that the media is mostly correct about the ordinary folks. Often when organizations give out the web address in ads, they also mention their AOL keyword. I assume they pay AOL to make them a special keyword, and they wouldn't do this if it didn't bring in enough customers to make back that money. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Free ISPs. Hype, Misunderstanding or Real Business? Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 02:42:33 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com J.F. Mezei wrote: > I get the impression that the media confuse ISP and "portals". Do > ISPs such as AOL actually change the content of HTML pages you fetch? > (eg: AOL customer in USA fetches www.cbc.ca (in Canada). Does AOL > actually add advertising to the html www.cbc.ca sends back? Bad example, because AOL _does_ change things. If you access a frequently-accessed page from within AOL, and haven't turned off "use compressed graphics", the images you get will be from AOL's cache servers, where they will have been converted to AOL's dreadful .art format. Some other large ISPs offer caching, but most of them do that only to relieve the load on their outgoing connections, and don't actually mess with the content. > I do not see how an ISP can actually make money while offering free > access. Do the majority (masses) really use those portals or do they > use their own bookmarks to go directly to places they need? I'm not sure either, unless they have cut a deal with the phone or cable companies, or have hornswoggled a bunch of ad buyers. > And of those that regularly use portals, do they use their ISP's > portal or another portal such as www.yahoo.com or whatever other > portals are around? Lots of people use Netcenter, because it's the default on Netscape. Many ISPs give away sightly modified versions of Navigator or IE that automatically open the ISP's page as the home page. Most people are too lazy to change it, even if they never look at the ads, and immediately move on to some other page. Interestingly, this behavior was used by Science Traveler International to boost the ratings for it's 1X browser. The default homepage for 1X is http://browserwatch.internet.com/ , which tracks "user-agent" data from all hits, and assembles statistics on browser use. Something really weird is happening this month, but July's results had 1X in third place, with about 2%. > I use Alta-Vista for search purposes only. I have a blank page as > "start-up page". Is that not how most people operate? I think the blank page is uncommon. I have Wired News at home, and Slashdot at work for my browser start pages. > Sometimes, I really wonder if I am the one who doesn't understand how > the internet works, or if it is the media. Or does the majority of the > uneducated masses really use the internet as the media report it while > a minority use the internet as it was meant to be? A combination of the two. The third factor is the gullibility of advertising people, who will pay really good money for completely untested media. The person who invents a really good way to track actual _sales_ generated by internet ads will be the last internet zillionaire for a while. Anthony Argyriou ------------------------------ From: bowenb@best.com (William H. Bowen) Subject: Re: Area Code Split in NPA 606 Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 17:42:48 GMT Reply-To: bowenb@best.com Ed, I spent a lot of time in Eastern Kentucky as a child, since my dad's family is orginally from that area (Pike Country). Knowing how poor that area is (folks, you have to see the poverty there eyeball to eyeball to really understand it), I'm glad the KPSC chose the course of action they took on this split. It is refreshing to see a PSC take the "little people" into consideration for a change. Regards, Bill Bowen bowenb@best.com Daly City, CA Ed Ellers wrote: > The Kentucky Public Service Commission has dropped the other shoe by > announcing a split of NPA 606, which presently includes approximately > the eastern half of the state. Unlike most splits (including the > recent split of NPA 502), this time the area including two large > metropolitan areas (Lexington and the suburbs of Cincinnati) will get > the new, so far undisclosed NPA in order to allow the poorer counties > of eastern Kentucky to avoid the costs of an area code change. > Permissive dialing is scheduled for April, with mandatory dialing to > begin in October 2000. > The (Louisville) Courier-Journal story is at > http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/1999/9908/05/990805code.html. ------------------------------ From: bellaire@tk.com (James Bellaire) Subject: Re: Spam Blocking Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 18:39:53 GMT It was Fri, 06 Aug 1999 01:28:48 -0600, and Joey Lindstrom wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: > I gotta go with Pat on this one ... it seems to me a stretch to say > that I'm participating in some sort of illegal conspiracy (thank God I > live in Canada and am not subject to this weird US law) when I decide > to block particular domains from sending email to my server. ... > I think the only issue here, really, is the collusion thing. And as > has been pointed out, it's only collusion if a large block of people > get together and decide we'll all do whatever the entire group decides > we'll do. If I subscribe to one of these black hole lists, I'm not > prevented from perusing the list and deciding, "hmmm, I see my good > friends over at somedomain.com are listed here ... but they're my > buddies, so I'll UNBLOCK them". I won't be penalized for "opting out", > therefore there's no collusion. Is the Black Hole list a database type of thing or a text list? The difference being, if Black Hole sends you (or provides by FTP or HTTP) a complete list that replaces the last list recieved then each time you updated your list you would have to go through and re-unblock the 'good' domains that were accidentally listed. That is work, and eventually it would be easier to leave in all the blacklisted ISPs instead of seeking out the good ones. If it is an update email, where you get a message that says "block these, unblock these" and the sysadmin manages their own database, then I would agree that the list is not as harmful and the decision is made by the actual sysadmin doing the blocking. The other part in this puzzle is for systems where the ISP is making the decision for the customer. If I can't recieve email from NSI because my ISP used the Black Hole list, then my ISP is interfering with my email. I could change ISPs but what if all the ISPs in my area went with Black Hole? How much trouble should I go to to get an 'unfiltered' email feed? I could tell my correspondents to not use a Black Hole blacklisted ISP, but only if I knew they were correspondents, and only if I knew my ISP was 'filtered'. I can't do anything for those who send email I never see. James ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Worries Slow Satellite Phones Date: 6 Aug 1999 18:40:54 GMT Organization: Netcom Monty Solomon writes: > The Federal Bureau of Investigation is putting the brakes -- at least > temporarily -- on the satellite phone industry. > The FBI and other U.S. law enforcement agencies are worried that new > space-based telephone systems, which theoretically allow a person to > use a wireless phone from virtually anywhere on earth, will undermine > their ability to wiretap telephone calls and trace criminals through > cellphones. >http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,40048,00.html It's interesting that this comes up now. If you call an Iridium phone from an Iridium phone, the call content goes through inter-satellite links without going through a ground station. One would have expected such wiretapping concerns to have surfaced years ago. An important point to note is that Iridium's control station is in Northern Virginia. There may already be arrangements in place. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: nntp.cig.mot.com (Name Lost in Transit) Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Worries Slow Satellite Phones Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 20:12:33 GMT Organization: Motorola CIG How long do you think it will be before the FBI wants to start tapping Voice over IP calls? If I wanted to keep my phones conversations private I would use VoIP. I think even the FBI will have a hard time sorting through all those packets. ------------------------------ From: Brad Houser Subject: Re: The Whole Internet Map Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 12:16:14 -0700 Organization: Intel Corporation Stan U. wrote in message news:telecom19.283.5@telecom-digest.org : > Pat ... Maybe I got the wrong site. The address you gave > http://telegeography.com didn't work, but www.telegeography.com did. > And if I did reach the same site your talking about, you forgot to add > one "minor" thing. The map costs $125 for a folded copy, and $155 for > a rolled version. > It looks like a nice map, that would look great hanging here on my > office wall ... but at that price, my wall will be naked for a long > time. It is $49 for the first, $25 for each after that. https://www.telegeography.net/peacockorder/orderonline1.html Brad Houser < Not speaking for Intel.> ------------------------------ From: am471@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Grebe) Subject: Cleveland Free-Net is Shutting Down Date: 6 Aug 1999 20:51:26 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Reply-To: am471@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Grebe) I thought this might be newsworthy, since they've been providing free e-mail, usenet, and BBS services since 1986: The Cleveland Free-Net, a remarkable achievment for its time, has been made obsolete by new technologies. Chat and News services for community users will end on September 1, 1999. The Free-Net will be discontinued on September 30, 1999. CWRU faculty, staff, and students should immediately investigate the services provided by CWRUnet; information is available at Information Services Help Desk (KSL 105A), via e-mail to help@po.cwru.edu, and on the World Wide Web at http://www.cwru.edu/net/nutshell/miscl/free-cwru.html. CWRU alumni should contact Alumni Affairs about the CWRUser program. Community users of Free-Net should explore alternate ways of receiving e-mail and using Internet resources. Public libraries, various continuing education programs, city recreation boards, and community users' groups are excellent sources of information. Dave Grebe am471@cleveland.freenet.edu ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J. Sobol) Subject: Re: US West In Court Over ISDN Net Service Speeds Date: 6 Aug 1999 22:17:49 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 23:45:15 -0400, monty@roscom.com allegedly said: > Michael Lair, an executive with ConsumerDefense.com, has started a > class action in the Washington state court over US West's [NYSE:USW] > alleged deception over the speeds achievable on its ISDN OnePak > Classic ISDN (integrated services digital network) service. > http://www.andovernews.com/cgi-bin/news_story.pl?20918/topstories Does Mr. Lair understand that there is a difference between the speed of the phone line (which is guaranteed to be 128K if you're on ISDN) and the speed of the Internet transfers? I'd love to see the text of the ads he claims are deceptive. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org It really bothers me that there is an IRC channel called #jarjarsex. ------------------------------ From: dmet@flatoday.infi.net Subject: Re: No PIC Selection Question Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 04:00:34 GMT Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: dmet@flatoday.infi.net On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:27:51 -0400, Mike Fox wrote: > Ed Ellers wrote: >> Linc Madison (LincMad001@telecom-digest.zzn.com) wrote: >>> If you do drop it altogether, your local carrier will bill you directly >>> for a monthly fee. However, it's significantly lower than $3/month." >> I believe it was 53 cents/month. > As of my July billing cycle, it just went up to $1.07/month (BellSouth, > anyway). Hmmm, what the bleep is going on here. On my July Bell South bill the charge went to $1.04 (up from 53 cents) and on the second line it hopped to $2.53 (up from $1.50). You would think Bell South would charge the same throughout its system. I am in Central Florida. By the way, when people talk of the $3 minimum usage charge, they seem to be forgetting the two flat charges that bring the minimum monthly bill to around $5/month (AT&T, MCI, and others) Dennis Metcalfe ------------------------------ From: LGRL of Texas Subject: Telco Recordings Tie Up Answering Machines Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 23:21:08 -0500 Organization: LGRL Phone answering machines are designed to not record silence, dial tones or the off hook warning. For many years, Southwestern Bell, when a caller hangs up on an answering machine, sends 20 seconds of dial tone, which is about the length of the outgoing message. THEN sneds a phony ringing signal which "answers" with a recording "If you'd like to make a call, please hang up and try again" ... all of which is RECORDED by answering machines. I must have four or five of these every day, and so do all of my friends. Any other parts of the country do this STUPID thing? ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: Channelized DS3 Date: 6 Aug 1999 14:49:44 GMT In article , rkenshalo@ mta-telco.com says: > Could anybody tell me where can I find any information about T3? What > is the "Channelized DS3" meaning? Two basic formats are used, each > composed of the basic M-Frame structure. The M bits establish the > multiframe structure. Thanks for the detailed discussion. Why is T3/DS3 rated at 45-46MB/sec when 28*T1=43,232,000 ? -----------------------------(c) 1999 Matthew Black, all rights reserved-- matthew black | Opinions expressed herein belong to me and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer california state university | network services BH-180E | e-mail: black at csulb dot edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 6D 14 36 ED 5F 34 C4 B3 long beach, ca 90840 | E9 1E F3 CB E7 65 EE BC ------------------------------ From: Dale Neiburg Subject: Re: FBI Wiretap Worries Slow Satellite Phones Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:40:38 -0400 In TELECOM Digest V19 #282, the moderator suggested: > So if there > gets to be an overflow of phone calls the FBI cannot keep up with, > they will probably just require telco to record the conversations > and forward them at regular intervals. If any users notice this > happening, telco will describe it as a new service offering; we > automatically record the phone call so you don't have to worry > about taking notes or keeping track of it. And after some period > of time, we will automatically erase the tape for you. And its > a free service to you from your telco. Aren't they nice people! PAT] But think how Linda Tripp would have *loved* that feature! She could have "protected" herself without risk of embarrassing legal consequences! (I know ... the topic is closed. I couldn't resist.) Dale Neiburg ** NPR Satellite Operations ** 202-414-2640 "The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese." --N. Marasco ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 15:52:45 EDT From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: E-Commerce: Suggestion For Merchant Identification J.F. Mezei > As well, in Canada, merchants can and do act as ATM machines [sic]. > You can buy some goodies but request that they take out more money > of your account and give you the change in cash. (eg: buy $11.00 > worth of good, but make EFTPOS transaction $25.00 and merchant then > gives you $14 in change). To the merchant, such transaction is the > equivalent of moving $14.00 from his cash register to his bank > account without having to move that cash to the bank. This is quite common in the US as well. In fact, the primary way I restock my wallet with cash is by doing just such a transaction when paying for groceries with my Visa "Check Card" (a debit card). Almost all the supermarkets around here now offer this service. (And I have yet to encounter a merchant who will process a debit card transaction without getting either a PIN or a signature that matches the card ...) Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: 73115.1041@compuserve.com Subject: Re: Analog Cell Phone Roaming Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 20:51:01 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Jim Hornbeck wrote: > Is there a way around this? I'd like to survive another year or so > till the satellites get up there and allow reliable connections at low > power. If this is what you are waiting for, you may wish to reconsider. Iridium was way oversold as a worldwide cellular service. Only problem is that it doesn't work inside most buildings and it doesn't work in "urban canyons." It's also extremely expensive for both the handset and to use, with airtime recently reduced from $5/minute to $3/minute. Iridium is one breath shy of bankruptcy. Other potential operators, like ICO and Globalstar are a long way from production service and unlikely to be competitive with cellular in the near future. While digital service is far from universal, dual mode phones are common and work quite well. The rate plans continue to drop and in certain instances can replace a land line. Ken 73115.1041@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: Daniel Ganek Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Man Has Bean Where Brain Should Be Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 13:41:41 -0400 Organization: Radionics, Inc. Sean Maher wrote: > In article , Monty Solomon > wrote: >> An L.L. Bean employee, thinking that toll-free numbers only begin with >> 800, changed the correct number from 877 LLB KIDS to 800 LLB KIDS. >> Some company in Virginia was overwhelmed with calls. L.L. Bean is >> supposedly working on a financial settlement with that company and has >> arranged to take over the number. > Is it just me, or does this seem like a possible way for a large > company to "hijack" a toll free number that you want? You "accidentally" > publish it as your own number, and your target is flooded with calls > that cost them money, both for the line and for the harried people who > answer it. You then offer your target a large sum to rectify your > mistake and take over the line? > Not that I think this particular case was intentional, because LL Bean > probably lost sales by publishing the wrong number and may have opened > themselves up for a lawsuit, right? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A lot of people would not give up the > number. I know I would not. I would bill the company for the expense > involved in the whole matter, but I would not give them the number. > I would let them reprint their catalog instead. PAT] From the Globe: Turns out that it was assigned but unused by some company. Due to some SNAFU it was transfered to a private residence. The little old lady there actually took some orders before LLBean stepped in! They gave her a "handsome" gift certificate of an undisclosed amount. Yes, they have taken over the number. /dan I've got one of the catalogs - I'll sell it to the highest bidder :-) ------------------------------ From: lederman@star.enet.dec.DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL.com (Bart Z. Lederman) Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Man Has Bean Where Brain Should Be Date: 6 Aug 1999 19:06:01 GMT Organization: Personal Opinions Only Reply-To: lederman@eisner.decus.DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL.org What I heard on the radio today is that L.L. Bean was supplying an operator (or possibly bank of operators) who answer the 800 number, ask which company the caller wants, and route the call appropriately. It was at least implied that L.L. Bean was assuming the cost for this. They did not say they were going to take over the number. B. Z. Lederman Personal Opinions Only Please remove the "DISABLE-JUNK-EMAIL" if you have a legitimate reason to E-mail a response to this post. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #284 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Aug 7 18:24:04 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA11754; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 18:24:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 18:24:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908072224.SAA11754@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #285 TELECOM Digest Sat, 7 Aug 99 18:24:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 285 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson L.A. District Attorney Drops Mitnick Case (Monty Solomon) Re: E-Commerce: Suggestion For Merchant Identification (Steve Winter) Re: Plugging Modem Into Romanian Phone System (Peter Corlett) Re: Local Calls Handled by LD Carrier? (Peter Corlett) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Eli Mantel) Re: The Internet: Then, Now and the Future (Gail M. Hall) Senate Passes "Cybersquatting" Bill (Monty Solomon) Is Linking Always Legal? The Experts Aren't Sure. (Monty Solomon) Free Chat -- Fax Over IP (CreDesCon) Customers Like Calling by Cable (Monty Solomon) Re: Legality of Spam (John R. Levine) Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client (Steven J. Sobol) Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client (Peter Corlett) Re: A Couple of Questions About Anti-Trust Law and Spam (B. Frankenberger) Re: A Couple of Questions About Anti-Trust Law and Spam (Robert Rosenberg) Re: Making "Real Time" FOIP Services A Reality (Jan Ceuleers) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 21:58:06 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: L.A. District Attorney Drops Mitnick Case By Paul Elias, ZDNN August 6, 1999 6:09 PM PT The Los Angeles district attorney gave Kevin Mitnick a birthday present Friday, dropping its six-year-old computer hacking case against the convicted hacker. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2310792,00.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So does that mean they will let him out of prison any time soon or are they going to keep him locked up while they search for new charges? Surely the government can find some reason to keep him in prison while they look for new 'evidence' and several million dollars more in damages, etc. How's the Japanese hacker taking the news? You know, the one who 'helped' catch Mitnick back in 1995? I'll bet he doesn't like it at all that Mitnick is finally getting a chance at freedom. Well, if this does mean that Kevin is going to be freed anytime soon all I can say is good luck to him in trying to rebuild his life. PAT] ------------------------------ From: steve@sellcom.com (Steve Winter) Subject: Re: E-Commerce: Suggestion For Merchant Identification Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 13:46:21 GMT Organization: WWW.SELLCOM.COM Reply-To: steve@sellcom.com J.F. Mezei spake thusly and wrote: > A good merchant would probably make available a link on his website > that will pop up the transaction to/from VISA to display his > "pedigree" directly. There is something "like that" with www.thepubliceye.com and, I believe, one or two others. American Express has a kind of "reassurance thing" that is also a button, assuring the customer that they are safe using their card on the internet. Regards, Steve http://www.sellcom.com Cyclades Siemens EnGenius Zoom at discount prices. SSL Secure VISA/MC/AMEX Online ordering Listed at http://www.thepubliceye.com as SELLCOM New Brick Wall "non-MOV" surge protection ------------------------------ From: abuse@verrine.demon.co.uk (Peter Corlett) Subject: Re: Plugging Modem Into Romanian Phone System Date: 7 Aug 1999 14:19:58 GMT Organization: B13 Cabal wrote: > In two weeks, I will be in Romania to adopt a baby. I would like to > get on the Internet from my hotel room. What kind of an adaptor do I > need to plug their telephone cable into my US PCM-CIA modem? Investigate Teleadapt who sell a kit for connecting to bizzare phone sockets around the world. They will also sell you an acoustic coupler if need be. I've never actually seen one of these things outside of War Games and the Teleadapt catalogue, but apparently these are much better than the old sort, and can handle 19,200bps. I believe their website and online brochure is at http://www.teleadapt.co.uk/ ------------------------------ From: abuse@verrine.demon.co.uk (Peter Corlett) Subject: Re: Local Calls Handled by LD Carrier? Date: 7 Aug 1999 14:13:48 GMT Organization: B13 Cabal Bob Goudreau wrote: > coredump@noxspam.enteract.com (Coredump) wrote: >> Beware. In some areas, 1+10d is automaticaly handed off to your LD >> provider regardless if it's local or not. Check your LD bill :-). > Specifically, which telcos in which areas do this? And is there any part > of the country in which such an abuse by the LEC wouldn't violate some > sort of tariff? You want weird? Try this situation, caused by competition and regulatory rules in the UK: I routinely route my local, and local-type (0845) calls through a traditional long-distance carrier because they have a price-matching offer where they refund double the price difference between themselves and British Telecom. My anaylsis tool I knocked up on Perl tells me that if I route all the calls that are more expensive via them through them, I effectively get a 15-20% improvement on the "best" BT rate just by writing them a letter every month asking for a refund. My long-distance calls don't go via this company, since it would cancel out the effects of the price-matching offer, so I use a calling card -- via my mobile phone -- which also saves on airtime charges by about 80% in the day provided that again, I do some legwork occasionally. Calls to mobile phones are either made directly from the mobile, depending on which network it is to, or via the calling-card. Interestingly, this long-distance provider requires a ten digit PIN and is supposedly tied to a single phone line. The calling card doesn't *require* a PIN, but authenticates via Caller ID, charging more if you end up using the PIN. Most accounts don't even have a PIN issued. My mobile phone company has a new tariff where apparently they will give me 50 minutes of free calls to any landline in the UK. Apparently, I can also make data and fax calls with this free time, including to ISDN numbers (where they rate-convert 9600 to 64k). I'm almost tempted to sign up for this to use this for calls to my ISP, since my calls to my ISP are spotty at best, and usually just make lots of minimum fee calls rather than holding the link up in one mammoth call. I also suspect the latency might be lower, despite the lower connection speed. How much bandwidth do you *need* for email, news, and telnet? My ISP is in London, about 80 miles away, and uses an 0845 translation service to make the charge the same as a local call. If I'm getting free long-distance calls, but chargable 0845, why not just dial their London number directly? Whilst we might not have free local calls, there's so many companies trying to get my business by subsidising the cost or giving away free minutes, they're as good as free. For example, one I'd dumped about a year ago has just (paper) mailed me commenting that I'd ceased using my account, and offering half-price calls across the board. It gives an effective 4p/min to the US. A side-effect of this use of third-party services is that I rarely use the default carrier, and as a result I never seem to pay more than a minimal amount over and above the line rental of the landline and the mobile phone to the respective operators. (Typically, these are SMS text messages that cannot be routed through third parties or misdials.) My entire telecomms bill clocks in at about 20 in line rental of the landline and mobile phone, and a further 15 in chargable calls to third-party companies. This is hardly breaking the bank. ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 07:00:38 GMT John R. Levine (johnl@iecc.com) wrote: > Note that 1+ toll alerting isn't a panacea either, since in Boston, > for example, with typical residential service some "local" calls you > dial with seven digits are free, while others cost 5 cpm. It seems to me that you've made a good case for toll alerting rather than against it, demonstrating that toll alerting should apply on any call that isn't completely free to the caller. In any case, arguing against toll alerting because it is sometimes poorly implemented is not very convincing. ------------------------------ From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) Subject: Re: The Internet: Then, Now and the Future Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 08:45:36 GMT Organization: APK Net On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 20:45:33 -0400, J.F. Mezei posted to comp.dcom.telecom about "Re: The Internet: Then, Now and the Future": > Interesting reading. However, perhaps changing the title to "The > Internet in the USA: Then, now and the Future" might be more > appropriate ? I, too, found the history interesting. The story comes at an interesting time here in northeast Ohio, USA, too, because it was recently made public that the Cleveland Free-Net will come down on September 30, October 1 by another report. The time depends on how you interpret "midnight," I guess. The Cleveland Free-Net is said to be the first free public access system to the Internet. Actually, all we had access to was e-mail and usenet news plus some very limited telnet service provided to us through a menu setup. At first Free-Net was a local system started by some folks at Case Western Reserve University. Later the CWRU's systems administration took over the system. A lot of us here got our online "feet" wet on the Cleveland Free-Net. Eventually they allowed our e-mail to be Internet compatible, so we could use our e-mail to subscribe to lists and correspond with anyone else who had Internet mail. Someone on Free-Net introduced me to the TELECOM Digest, which I subscribed to and really enjoyed. When CWRU and the CFN admins let us community users get into their usenet groups, we could get the TELECOM Digest via the usenet c.d.t. group and save our mail user space for other things. It seems that Pat is sticking to moderating this TELECOM Digest for a longer time than CWRU could keep Free-Net going. That says a lot! Thanks to Pat for keeping it up all these years and to the many contributors who make it interesting to a wide variety of people! BTW, the reason given for closing Free-Net is that the Free-Net software is not Y2K compatible. They reportedly do not want to rewrite the program or set up the freenet newsgroups there in another format. I hope that other groups here will take up the slack and adopt the groups that are not already being taken to the Web or other services. As one example, I have fond memories of getting help from the Internal Revenue sig on the Cleveland Free-Net back around 1986. Eventually that sig died out, but was a seed for getting government agencies on some kind of system accessible to the public. Now we can download IRS forms and get other information. To get this back to the group's topic of telephony, I can say that it was a big help to us when some geniuses invented error-correcting modems and CWRU bought some for the CFN system. What a relief it was *not* to get a bunch of garbage on the screen when we got static on the phone lines! Over the years I think we are getting less static than previously. We do appreciate the phone companies who continue to make good telephone service available to us. It was, after all, the availability of telephone services that made such systems as computer bulletin boards and online services possible. Gail M. Hall gmhall@apk.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks very much for your kind message. This mailing list/digest/usenet group/whatever was the first telecom- related thing on the net; it remains the oldest in continuous publication and it is the second-oldest mailing list/digest dealing with any topic on the net. Later this month marks the start of the nineteenth year of this Digest. Believe it or not, there are still some charter subscribers on the mailing list; I think the mailing list looks like this: Of the three thousand plus names on the mailing list at this time, 7.2 percent were added in 1999 7.6 percent were added in 1998 18.8 percent were added in 1997 18.5 percent were added in 1996 24.5 percent were added in 1995 8.7 percent were added in 1994 8.0 percent were added in 1993 1.7 percent were added in 1992 0.3 percent were added in 1990-91 4.7 percent added prior to 1990 My internal mailing list entries look like this 'emailaddress (name 080699)' where the six digits on the end are the date the person was added to the mailing list. I started this record keeping system in 1992. During 1991 I added only the name with the email address; those are now on the current list as '000091'. At that time those I knew who had been added to the list in 1990 are '000090'. Prior to that, there are only email addresses but no names; those are shown as '000000' on the present list. I just grepped the current list to get the above statistics. This would seem to indicate about 25 percent of the list readers have been around longer than five years, and about four percent longer than ten years. I think there are five names on the list at present which were carried over from the HUMAN NETS list in August, 1981. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 22:38:58 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Senate Passes "Cybersquatting" Bill From: jrussell@world.std.com (Jacob Hale Russell) Subject: Senate passes "cybersquatting" bill... Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:38:27 -0400 (EDT) From the Wired article listed first: Thinking of buying the Internet version of a famous trademark name in the hope that the owner will pay you big bucks for it? If a bill passed by the Senate Thursday night becomes law, you'd be committing a crime as a so-called cybersquatter. Late Thursday, the Senate passed the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (S1255), sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). The bill, which now goes to the House, undermines those trying to make a profit by reserving domain names which are the same as, or "confusingly similar to," a trademarked word or phrase. CPSR Cyber Rights -- http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: cyber-rights-unsubscribe@cpsr.org To reach moderator, e-mail: cyber-rights-owner@cpsr.org For additional commands, e-mail: cyber-rights-help@cpsr.org Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use. ---------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What is not made entirely clear here however is that whenever a domain name conflict arises between someone who is using a domain name versus a company which feels it has a right to the name, *the presumption will be the company is entitled to it and the netizen presently using it is a squatter* and the registrar will respond accordingly. In any netizen as present occupant versus corporate intention to obtain the name, the netizen will be required to give it up. With luck, you will be told ahead of time so you can arrange your website affairs accordingly, but be alert to the possibility you may wake up some day and find your site has been disconnected, as happened to the lady in New York when AOL decided its need for a name she was using was more important than her need for it. Her African-American Online Search, a service which connects black professionals with executive positions in companies went poof the day that America Online decided to begin its search engine and felt that her domain name was 'too close in appearance' to theirs. So AOL simply instructed the registrar to remove it from her and point it to them. Welcome to the new internet, everyone! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 22:33:35 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Is Linking Always Legal? The Experts Aren't Sure. Jean-Pierre Bazinet, a 20-year-old film buff and financial consultant in Ottawa, would seem to be a movie studio's best friend. He runs a Web site called Movie-List that is a collection of links to over 900 movie trailers scattered across the Internet, making it easier to find what are essentially commercials for films. But late last month, Bazinet removed the links to all trailers for movies from Universal Pictures. Lawyers from the studio had sent letters and e-mail objecting to his linking to Universal trailers without permission. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We covered this previously, but it is worth a repeat. The only 'experts' who are not sure about this seem to be the lawyers for the large commercial sites which have become the scourge of the net in recent years. What is it these 'experts' do not understand about protocol and procedures on the world wide web? Do they think Tim Berners-Lee had nothing better to do with his time one day so he sat down and wrote up a theoretical scheme in which everyone could link to everyone else and then said wouldn't this be a marvelous idea as long as we can get imprimateur for it from corporation A and corporation B, etc.? Guess what, Universal? The net in general and the web in particular were here a long time before you showed up. All of the protocols and procedures were in place a long time before Universal got here. If you choose to put something in a publicly accessible directory then you have chosen to put it on display. If you have chosen to put it on display then my free speech rights allow me to point my finger at your display and suggest that others look at it also. That is how the web was constructed; that is how it has historically been interpreted; that is how netizens have always used it. If you do not want your file seen, or want it seen only under certain conditions, then take technical steps to insure that it happens that way. Exactly what is it the 'experts' do not understand? Are they having a hard time understanding why many netizens are not immediatly falling down to worship their corporate clients? Universal, and others like you, please either play by the rules or go away. Your choice. PAT] ------------------------------ From: credescon@aol.com (CreDesCon) Date: 06 Aug 1999 17:47:58 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Free Chat -- Fax Over IP Hi folks, I haven't been able to participate in group discussions for a while, but should be getting back soon. I wanted to invite everyone to a Free internet chat that is being sponsored in part by TelephonyWorld.com on August 18th. The chat is titled "FAX OVER IP ; Where do we go in the next millennium?" and will feature speakers from a few of the industry leaders to answer your questions. Please stop by the link we've set-up with the complete details http://www.telephonyworld.com/chat.htm Hope to see you there. Don P TelephonyWorld.com "Bringing the world of Telephony to your Fingertips" http://www.telephonyworld.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 22:32:29 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Customers Like Calling by Cable WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 - Customers who have jettisoned their local telephone company in favor of service from their cable TV operator rank the quality of the service higher than the bulk of local telephone subscribers, according to a study released Wednesday by J. D. Power and Associates. Satisfaction with cable telephone service ranked third in a field of 14; only BellSouth and Southern New England Telephone -- which tied for first -- were ranked higher by their customers. http://www.msnbc.com/news/297270.asp ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 1999 15:41:04 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: legality of spam Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > That is, if I send large quantities of UBE to subscribers of Joe's > ISP, all of said UBE being legal in all other respects (i.e. > headers are legit, the content is truthful, etc.), have I > tresspassed on Joe's computers? The answer at this point appears to be "it depends". If you send so much UBE that it crashes Joe's servers, that could probably be taken to be a denial-of-service attack, which is illegal. If Joe has told you to stop sending spam to his system and you do so anyway, that's clearly illegal, as some of the Cyberpromo cases show. But if you're sending unforged spam at levels which are annoying but not destructive, at this point I don't see any reason to think that's illegal. That's why I'm on the board of CAUCE, lobbying for laws that will make spam clearly illegal and permitting the unwilling recipients to sue the spammers for modest amounts. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net (Steven J Sobol) Subject: Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client Date: 6 Aug 1999 22:06:26 GMT Organization: North Shore Technologies Corp. 888.480.4NET On 6 Aug 1999 02:14:45 GMT, brettf@netcom.com allegedly said: > Indeed. And thanks for the thought out response, which is light-years > ahead of the knee-jerk "you must be an evil spammer if you think it's > possible for anything that is anti-spam to be illegal" that I have seen > in other forums. It's true that in some of the spam-related newsgroups you have participants who are there because they are overwhelmed by the amount of spam they get. And they are frustrated, and that leads to responses like the type of response described above. I can hardly blame people for being frustrated, but I wish there weren't as many fights in those newsgroups as there currently are. >> the EarthLink Network vs. Cyber Promotions case (the Earthlink press Or the CompuServe vs Cyber Promotions Case. C2-96-1070, tried in federal court in Columbus, Ohio. Or AOL vs CyberPromo. > in the general case, and certainly it wouldn't be legal for a chain of > store owners who were anti-gun to band togethor to force any store > that sold guns out of business, on the theory that "under some > circumstances, guns are illegal". But if a store consistently sold guns to convicted felons because they didn't run pre-sale background checks on the buyers, would you still agree that the neighborhood's homeowners, whose windows had been shot up on many occasions, don't have the right to go after the store owners? I think that may be a better analogy. MAPS takes pains to document a history of repeated abuse, or a history of ignoring complaints, before putting a web site's address, or mail server's address, on the RBL. I would say that selling spamware services (either software or labor) should indeed be RBL fodder, also. Most spamware tries extremely hard to "cloak" itself. This usually means either forged headers or the unapproved use of open third-party relays. The latter isn't ever legal, and the former is only legal in some places. > Which brings me to what I think is the central issue here: Is UBE an > unlawful tresspass on the computers of the ISP of the recipients of > the UBE? According to the court cases against CyberPromo, I'd say yes. > Earthlink's press release seems to indicate that the court did accept > their arguments with respect to the damage done to the computer that > receives the UBE, but we cannot tell from the press release how > accepting the judge was of that argument, and what portion, if any, > that acceptance played in the judge's decision to issue an injunction. > So, while they both mention tresspass, neither is definitively on > point about whether or not sending UBE is, in the general case, a > tresspass on the computers owned by the ISP of the recipients of the > UBE. How about the CompuServe decision? > Furthermore, these are both low-level, unappealed court rulings, > brought against spammers without lots of resources by an ISP with > considerably more resources. These are not the circumstances under > which case law is made. To get a definitive ruling on the legality of > spam, we would need a case where both sides were well funded, where the > loser appealed, and where the central issue was the tresspass I agree here. > it's going to be hard to argue tresspass, because the reason that the > servers exist is to: receive E-Mail. CompuServe explicitly told CP to stop mailing them. CP continued mailing anyhow. In many cases you are correct, the servers are there to receive e-mail and no prior notice has been given that UBE is unwanted. But not in the case of CS vs. CP. > Existing case law, unappealed as it is, is not on point, because in > every case I've seen, (and www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/spam.html has a > lot), the plaintiffs made forged From: lines an issue. Please read the CompuServe decision and let us know what you think. North Shore Technologies Corporation http://www.NorthShoreTechnologies.net We don't just build websites; we build relationships! 815 Superior Ave. #610, Cleveland, OH 44114-2702 216.619.2NET 888.480.4NET Host of the Forum for Responsible & Ethical E-mail http://www.spamfree.org It really bothers me that there is an IRC channel called #jarjarsex. ------------------------------ From: abuse@verrine.demon.co.uk (Peter Corlett) Subject: Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client Date: 7 Aug 1999 12:59:30 GMT Organization: B13 Cabal Brett Frankenberger wrote: > (4) It is a violation of federal anti-trust law for a group of > competitors to band together (act in concert) to force a competitor out > of business (or to harm said competitor). Of course, this is only in the USA. The world is not the USA, which makes spam even more annoying, as the vast majority appears to originate from there from small-time crooks who have discovered "duh internet" for the first time. Even if I happened to be interested in some shares in Tower Bridge, I'd not be able to send a cheque in US funds except at great expense. My Visa card is much better for this sort of thing, but of course, these spamming shysters don't have merchant accounts. > Of course, NSI is only spamming people who own domains. People who own > domains also need to receive mail from NSI regarding renewals, etc. So > blackhole NSI at your own risk ... you better have complete faith in > snail-mail invoice delivery, or know when your domains expire, because if > you blackhole NSI, you'll miss all their E-Mail notifications. Where I work, we outsource our domain registration. Originally this was because we didn't have the expertise, now we do, but not enough time to fight NSI. It's quite likely that we'll become a Nominet partner and thus register .uk domains ourself, leaving the NSI-battling to the third-party. The net result is that, as a sort of shadow hostmaster, I don't actually get NSI spam. Then again, I implemented the MAPS RBL when I upgraded the mail system (80% drop in spam overnight), so how would I know if they were trying to contact me... I'm plotting getting myself a vanity domain, but I really don't intend supporting NSI. I've got a .org.uk in mind instead. The benefit of this is that banner ads that check the reverse DNS tend to target better -- I get UK-oriented, and much more tasteful adverts than the eternally-blinking horrors. Heck, I've even clicked on some of them. ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: A Couple of Questions About Anti-Trust Law and Spam Date: 7 Aug 1999 01:53:03 GMT Organization: rbfnet In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > At what point does an exchange of free speech among a group of persons > who find themselves in agreement on some matter become 'collusion' > or a 'conspiracy' among them to put someone out of business? For > example, if I in this column print the name of a site which sends out > spam, and I use an exercise of free speech to give my opinion of the > site, and I advise my readers 'I do not intend to accept any email > sent out from that site', is it a violation of anti-trust if several > or all of my readers agree with my speech and **quite on their own > volition** also take measures to prevent that site's mail from getting > through? It is most certainly not a violation of anti-trust law, because neither you nor your readers (in general) are ISPs. Therefore, if/when you and your readers act in concert to put an ISP out of business, you aren't putting a competitor out of business, so you're safe from anti-trust law. There is such a thing as "conspiracy in restraint of trade" that would cover some cases that anti-trust law wouldn't. I am not a lawyer, and my legal "expertise", is limited to areas in which I have been sufficiently interested to go do research. The notion of "conspiracy in restraint of trade" is not such an area. Intuitively, I think it would not apply to a situation such as you describe above, but I don't know enough to want to start speculating here ... > It certainly would seem to be a violation of anti-trust if there were > a formal group of admins who agreed among themselves that whatever > one of them (their appointed leader, let's say) instructed them to do, > they would all do. Right. So if ten large ISPs get together and elect Vixie to produce a violater-list, and mutually agree to use it, it's a clear violation of the law. But that's not what happened. What happened is Vixie decided to start producing a list, and decided to make it available. ISPs independantly subscribe when they want and unsubscribe when they want. The effect is the same, but how they got there is completely different. Absent a clear precedent -- and there may be one that I don't know about -- I wouldn't want to guess which way a federal judge would rule. For example, airlines have come under scrutiny for "patterns" of price changes that were made independently and publically listed in the appropriate industry fare systems, that had anticompetive effects. > Don't admins have the right to communicate among themselves and share > their ideas on the best way to operate or maintain their site? Sure. For example, an ISP presenting a seminar on "how to implement BGP routing" at a meeting of other ISP operators is certainly legal. But that's being done "for the good of the industry", not for the purposes of forcing any ISP out of business. On the other hand, if all the large ISPs in Chicago met monthly to select one small ISP to force out of business (by, say, blocking all mail from them), that would certainly be illegal. But MAPS differs in two ways from this clearly illegal scenario: (A) MAPS is run by an organization that does not compete with ISPs, and all the ISPs that are subscribing to MAPS are doing so independantly. (B) The ISPs selected for forcing out of business by MAPS are engaged in a specific business practice (intentionally or unintentionally carrying spam for spammers) that many ISPs consider inappropriate. In spite of arguments made by other posters, the fact is that spam, in the general case, is still legal (or, at least, has not been definitively declared illegal). Some characteristics of some (maybe even most) spam, such as stolen From: lines, are not legal. But spam is not inherently illegal, nor is selling service to a spammer, nor is operating an open relay. Yet, selling service to a spammer or operating an open relay will get you on the RBL. So: The criteria in use for getting on the RBL include many things that are legel business practices. So the fact that this alleged acting in concert, is done for the purpose of blocking open relays or spam-providers doesn't help the RBL subscribers. That leaves us with point (A) above being the only saving grace for the RBL-subscribers, and the question becomes: For the purposes of deferal anti-trust law, does "acting in concert" include various competing ISPs deciding, on their own, to subscribe to a list that contains names of competitors who operate a legal but not-well-liked service (an open-relay, for example), and thereby acting together to force those competitors to act a certain way (even though they didn't plan the togetherness)? I don't claim to know. I just think it's a real possibility that a court might find it to be illegal. > Do the member merchants of a 'Better Business Bureau' in your community > violate the anti-trust laws or conspire to put another merchant out of > business when they condemn his business practices or are they merely > attempting to get the offending merchant to conform with accepted > business practices in the community? No. But there is no active use of the list by the merchants in the community. That is, the BBB produces a list (much like Vixie does). And that list is made available to the public (much like Vixie's list). But the other businesses do not use that list to try to force their competitors out of business. It's not the compilation of the list I am concerned about -- I've never felt that Vixie had any exposure to anti-trust law. It's his subscribers that may be in trouble. > Or does he [Vixie] exercise free speech in publishing a list which > other admins are free to use as advisories in maintaining their own > sites? That's exactly what he does. As I said in my original post, he's merely "reporting the news". The anti-trust issues I see are with competitors who make use of the information. > Do you think any ISP or admin gives a damn what other > ISP happens to be 'out there' as long as netiquette is observed? The problem is the attempt to enforce netiquette. If Walmart, Target, and K-Mart got togethor and decided that selling Red Baskets was evil, and attempt to force other department stores that sold red baskets out of business, it would clearly be illegal. I contend that it's equally illegal for a group of ISPs to get together and decide that selling open-relay service is evil, and then attempt to force competitors that sell that service out of business. But the question remains: Does subscribing to the RBL, as currently structured, constiture "getting together". > It does seem to me to be quite a stretch of the imagination to try > and use anti-trust laws, which were written for other purposes > entirely as a way of saying distasteful email has to be accepted. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that anti-trust law prevents ISPs from acting in concert to *force out of business ISPs that carry spam or run services that spammers may take advantage of*. I don't think anti-trust law would prevent attempts to drop spam as it is received. -- Brett [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I happen to think it is just too damn bad that ISPs, sysadmins, responsible users and others have to be careful in the exercise of their own speech taking care not to agree with each other too much, lest Sanford Wallace get a bum deal in the process. That sounds to me like something the ACLU would think up. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 01:28:03 -0400 From: Robert A. Rosenberg Subject: Re: A Couple of Questions About Anti-Trust Law and Spam I'm not going to quote what PAT said but I'll throw out another thought. Does the publication of a list of sites that are considered (by some criteria) to be inappropriate for children (ie: A "Blocking List") and the use of the list by Web Browsers intended for use by children create an "Anti-Trust" incident? ------------------------------ From: Jan Ceuleers Subject: Re: Making "Real Time" FOIP Services A Reality Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 14:42:37 +0200 Organization: the Experimenter Board Reply-To: jan.ceuleers@computer.org Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: > Why the 9600bps restrition (in both cases) not the 14.4Kbps needed to > support V17 Fax? You are throttling Fax machines that would establish > 14.4 conntetions over POTs connections to 9.6 connections. You are quite correct that my argument also holds for 14.4 kbit/s V.17 fax calls. However, I don't know whether DCMEs actually support this (although indeed they _could_). And the last time I looked at FRADs with fax relaying capabilities (2 or more years ago now), none supported fax transmission rates above 9.6 kbit/s. BTW: I haven't seen V.17 14.4 kbit/s capabilities in equipment other than faxmodems (i.e. not in regular fax machines). I would therefore suggest that 14.4 kbit/s fax traffic actually represents a very small proportion of total fax traffic (although I haven't got any numbers to back this assumption up). Moreover, unfortunately it's not in the interest of an intercontinental telco to deploy equipment that will shorten fax calls and thus reduce revenue. The reason why they deployed DCMEs in the first place was to reduce bandwidth requirements, not shorten calls. Anyway, the reason for my contribution was to indicate that real-time transport of fax traffic across a packet- or frame-oriented medium at reduced bandwidth is not new. Jan ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #285 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Aug 7 19:39:18 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id TAA14299; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 19:39:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 19:39:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908072339.TAA14299@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #286 TELECOM Digest Sat, 7 Aug 99 19:39:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 286 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Spam Blocking (John R. Levine) Re: Spam Blocking (Brett Frankenberger) Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client (Alan Boritz) Re: A Couple of Questions About Anti-Trust Law and Spam (Alan Boritz) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Jack Decker) Help Getting Through to a Busy Phone (Jennifer Kuang) Re: Channelized DS3 (Brett Frankenberger) Re: Telco Recordings Tie Up Answering Machines (Steve Uhrig) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Aug 1999 15:59:11 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Spam Blocking Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Is the Black Hole list a database type of thing or a text list? > The difference being, if Black Hole sends you (or provides by FTP or > HTTP) a complete list that replaces the last list recieved then each > time you updated your list you would have to go through and re-unblock > the 'good' domains that were accidentally listed. Well, gee, if you actually wanted to know the answer to that question, you could have visited http://www.mail-abuse.com/rbl and found out how the MAPS RBL is actually distributed. It's distributed as BGP routing data and as DNS lookup info. It is technically trivial for a system manager to keep a local exception list that overrides the RBL or other blocking lists for IP ranges that you want to contact even though they're on one of the lists. Some systems that use the RBL have exception lists, some don't. With particular respect to Network Solutions, the only address that MAPS is considering RBLing is the one they use to send out bulk mailings of advertisements. Nobody's proposing to block their web server or the addresses used for domain update mail. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: Spam Blocking Date: 7 Aug 1999 21:28:42 GMT Organization: rbfnet In article , James Bellaire wrote: >> prevented from perusing the list and deciding, "hmmm, I see my good >> friends over at somedomain.com are listed here ... but they're my >> buddies, so I'll UNBLOCK them". I won't be penalized for "opting out", >> therefore there's no collusion. > Is the Black Hole list a database type of thing or a text list? > The difference being, if Black Hole sends you (or provides by FTP or > HTTP) a complete list that replaces the last list recieved then each > time you updated your list you would have to go through and re-unblock > the 'good' domains that were accidentally listed. That is work, and > eventually it would be easier to leave in all the blacklisted ISPs > instead of seeking out the good ones. Not really. If it worked like that, you would simply add a "grep -v" as part of the script that places the new list in production. At least for the MAPS project's list, it's database that they maintain and that subscribing ISPs query in real-time. It would be relatively easy for a subscribing ISP to modify their sendmail configuration to check a local database of "domains to always allow, no matter what MAPS says about it". Brett ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Lawyer Makes a Fool of Himself and His Client Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 13:51:17 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) wrote: > In article , TELECOM Digest Editor > wrote: >> So Paul Vixie told NSI if they were seemingly unable or unwilling to >> get their computers and users under control and stop sending out >> spam, that other sysadmins would get the problem under control for >> them. Either NSI stops the spam, or others will stop it for them. >> Now comes Jonathan Emery, hotshot lawyer. Where exactly he finds a >> legal basis for his arguments, I do not know. The Black Hole list >> is a voluntary mutual effort by sysadmins and ISPs who say to the >> offenders on the list, 'we do not want to hear any more from you.' > Well, I'm often felt that the black-listee's had a valid legal > argument. I'm not sure NSI could use this argument -- they don't > compete with ISPs -- but below is my explanation of why I think the > blackhole list is contrary to federal anti-trust law, and why any ISP > that is blackhole'd would have standing to sue for triple damages: > (1) Spam is legal. Dead wrong. It's an invasion of privacy, criminal trespass in some areas, and always costs the recipient to receive it. > (AFAIK, none of the court orders against spammers have related to > spamming per se. They have all related to things like forged From: > addresses.) Dead wrong again. Compuserve and others got judgments in their favor for the mere act of sending it through their mail systems. Forged addresses were only a detail. > (2) ISPs that relay spam, knowingly or unknowingly, are engaging in a > legal business activity. Wrong. You've got this issue so completely wrong that it's pointless to argue specious justifications. Perhaps clueless AOL newbies have accepted spam as a fact of life, since their service provider encourages it, but those of us who are *really* on the Internet aren't going to fall for it so easily. Unsolicted commercial email is rude, an invasion of privacy, and often (technically) illegal. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: A Couple of Questions About Anti-Trust Law and Spam Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 14:00:28 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE In article , William Hay wrote: > As a lawyer (although not an antitrust specialist), I don't agree that > anti-spam activities pose an antitrust problem. Here's why. > ISPs are private companies, like newspapers and television stations. > They do not have any obligation to transmit email from their customers > or to allow email to transit their sites (unless they have contracts > that require them to do so). Therefore, unless some other rule > applies, they can do whatever they like with email. No, that's not entirely correct. It's only recently that ISP's have been writing their service agreements to read that they are under no obligation to provide anything for anyone. I can assure you that my UUNet service agreement obligated transmitting email (as network conditions permit), but the intent was that network outages beyond their control would not be a breach of their service agreement. > Examples of other rules that might apply are those involving discrimin- > ation (e.g., "I won't transmit email from black people") and the like > -- although even this might be legal (remember the fuss over segregated > country clubs, which was resolved more by public pressure than by law). No, some jurisdictions may make the former illegal, but history may prove the latter to be exactly the opposite. > Another rule might be monopoly over the electronic superhighway > (remember that AT&T, gas pipelines, bus companies, airlines and other > public utilities have common carrier status, which prohibit them from > discriminating against classes of customers). But there are lots of > ISPs out there -- and no one has suggested that the web itself should > be a common carrier (probably because there is no such thing as "the > web"). Wrong. "The web" is a collection of network addresses, but surely is no carrier of ANYTHING, and is not a network by itself (except a virtual one). But you may be mistaking "the web" for the Internet. > It's hard to see how spammers can make a complaint that they have a > right to deposit oceans of email with an ISP, or how blocking that > would hurt a free market (remember, they've got a right to write their > spam, but they have no right to make you read it, or to force the > newspaper to print it). To take that a little further, they have no right to force anyone to transport it unless if they have paid for the privilege. However, that privilege only extends to those connections over which the ISP has control. For example, that does not extend to the connection for which *I* pay connect time. That becomes complicated only when we have the same ISP. It borders on fraud when the ISP encourages the spam and forces me to pay for it. > I could see a possible antitrust problem if, say, an ISP owned by a > content provider was to block the transmission of another provider's > content, but (by analogy to Microsoft), only if that ISP so dominated > the market that blocking was tantamount to shutting the other provider > out of the market altogether. But even that would be a reach under > current law (we'll see what happens in the MS case). The AOL vs. Microsoft war has been heating up, with AOL modifying their system to now make some email messages written with Microsoft products unreadable for AOL subscribers. AOL has also modified their subscribers' outbound messages to make it impossible or very difficult for users of Microsoft products, such as Outlook, to retrieve email messages written by AOL subscribers. Microsoft already fixed one problem in their Outlook 97 organizer/email program to fix that problem, now AOL has caused another incompatibility with Outlook 98. Microsoft is not talking about what they need to fix in their premium email client program to fix the new issues. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 15:58:29 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' On 5 Aug 1999 21:03:29 -0400, johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote: >> I *still* haven't heard a sensible argument against toll alerting. > Because it wastes people's time. When I make a phone call, I want to > make a phone call, and I don't care if it's a 5 cpm "local" call or a > 7 cpm "toll" call. When I lived in the Boston area, to make phone > calls I had to memorize which prefixes within 617 were "toll" from > where I lived and which were "local" to call them, even though the > cost difference was negligible and during nights and weekends the > "toll" places cost less to call than many of the "local" ones. And I suppose you think this is a good thing? Look, John, maybe you have the mental abilities to memorize which out of hundreds of exchanges are local and which are toll, but I assure you that I do not, and most people I know do not. Your other assertion seems to be that it doesn't matter to you whether a call is toll or not, you will make it anyway. That's fine for you, but as someone else pointed out, you are not the only user of the telephone network. I for one do not make toll calls (really -- I send e-mail and ICQ messages, or once in a great while even drive to see someone in person, but I do not make toll calls. It helps that almost all my friends have e-mail now, and the ones that don't, don't hear much from me anymore. I even select doctors and providers of other services primarily based on whether or not they are in my local calling area, or have a toll-free number). I say this only to point out that even though there are people like you who don't care, there are people like me to whom it matters a lot. Why should your opinion prevail over mine? It still upsets me that there is (or at least used to be) a cell phone exchange in this area for which GTE attempted to bill something like eight cents a minute even though it was dialed using only seven digits. We do have toll alerting in this state, and when I called they took the charges off the bill (I think they may have had my account flagged as someone who does complain to the Michigan Public Service Commission when they screw up), but eventually I just stopped calling that cell phone user rather than going through the hassle of calling for credit every month. The weird part about that was that GTE was not my selected carrier for Intra-LATA calling at the time, yet the charges for those calls would show up as being billed by GTE as calls to another city in the LATA (that city is normally a toll call, but the rate was usually higher if you called a normal "landline" number in that city). > Millions of people in urban states including New York, New Jersey, and > California have never had toll alerting, and despite the moaning and > groaning from people who've never lived there, it's not a problem. We > make phone calls. We do just fine. I would say that it is rather arrogant of you to assume that. Have you ever gone through a poor, perhaps mostly ethnic neighborhood in those states and asked folks there if they've had any problems with excess charges on their phone bills? Yes, I know some of them may try to "work the system", but for many others (those among the poor but honest majority), charges may just show up on the bill one day and they have no idea why they are there. I suppose you think all these folks should have to take classes and memorize exchange tables so they can *maybe* figure out when they are going to incur an extra charge from their local phone company. It appears to me that you are well-heeled enough that you just don't care what you are getting charged in toll charges, and you want to take away everyone else's ability to control their toll costs just so you aren't inconvenienced by having to dial a few extra digits. Well, I hope you stay in whatever state you're in, that allows the phone companies to treat customers like pigeons waiting to be plucked, because many of us who live in states with toll-alerting like it just fine, and if for some unfathomable reason I ever moved to a state that didn't have it (and believe me, I would find out as much as I could about the phone service in a state before moving there), I might just consider doing without a phone (especially if I could get cable modem or affordable wireless Internet service!). > Note that 1+ toll alerting isn't a panacea either, since in Boston, > for example, with typical residential service some "local" calls you > dial with seven digits are free, while others cost 5 cpm. If I were > spending two hrs/day on-line, that's an extra $180/mo phone bill. Michigan has some "Adjacent Exchange" plans that allow residential customers to pay $15 per month for unlimited calling to adjacent exchanges within the same LATA (exchanges which, in many non-Ameritech states, would likely be part of the free local calling area due to proximity). Calls to those exchanges must still be dialed as toll calls (1+area code+number) but at least you know on those calls that you had better check first to make sure it's in your plan area or you *might* incur a toll charge. Most people who have the Adjacent Exchange Toll Calling Plan (AETCP) use it to call specific, frequently-called numbers (such as friends or relatives) and they already know where those numbers are. With regard to the AETCP, what I am not sure about (maybe someone could enlighten us on this) is what happens if you select a carrier other than the ILEC for your Intra-LATA toll. For example, if you select MCI for your Intra-LATA toll, do your AETCP calls still stay within the local telco, or do they actually go to MCI's switch and back? If they go to MCI, is MCI then required by law to bill the calls at AETCP rates (which is to say, not bill for them at all if you have the $15/month unlimited plan)? Or, can you only get on the AETCP if you select the local ILEC for Intra-LATA toll? When the AETCP was first enacted (about a decade ago) there was no competition for Intra-LATA toll unless you did a "10XXX" dialaround, so this wasn't an issue, but I wonder how it's handled now. Of course, what I REALLY wonder is why there is such a thing as "Intra-LATA toll" anyway. We are still paying for phone service as though we were in the 1940's, when completing calls outside one's home exchange involved the use of operators, and expensive and scarce copper cables. I wonder how much it would increase the phone bills of the average phone customer today if the government were to decree that all calls within LATA's were to be considered local calls? I know, the long distance carriers would scream like stuck pigs, as would the ILEC's, but I have to wonder exactly how much the local phone bill for each customer would have to go up, especially after you figure in the savings associated with not having to bill for such calls (and not having to resolve billing disputes). I'll bet it would not be that much, and then customers would not have to worry as much about which calls are toll, and which aren't. And as a huge bonus, CLEC's would not have to reserve nearly as many blocks of unused numbers, and we could probably stop issuing new area codes for a while! Jack To reply via private e-mail, make the obvious modification to my e-mail address. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 13:36:31 PDT From: Jennifer Kuang Subject: Help Reaching Busy Phone Number Hi, I have a question about phone service. Now I want to buy some tickets for a very hot concert. The ticket office told everybody that they only have 20 tickets left. To be fair they ask everybody to call in at 9:00 on Wenesday morning. I know a lot of people ( far more than 20 ) are going to call during that time. The ticket office would not answer the phone until 9:00. I want to know how could I get through the line quicker than others? What do I need to do to increase my chance? If I start calling at 8:58 and keep dialing even nobody going to answer but try to occupy the line, does this work? If I call in from a phone which has the same prefix number as the ticket office's number, does that increase my chance to get through cause somebody told me the same prefix number means the same switch office no routing needed? Anything else? Thanks in advance. Jennifer [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By 8:58 probably all the lines are going to already be occupied with people ringing. If you can find three or four phones in at least the same central office exchange as the place you are calling (being on the same prefix is not needed) and if you manipulate those phones correctly, you have a good chance of getting through right at 9:00 AM. Try to find (on that prefix or at least central office exchange) a phone instrument with three or four lines on it so you can save precious seconds by just punching the 'line' 'hold' and 'conference' buttons rapidly. Starting about 8:00 or 8:30 at the latest, dial into the place you are calling on as many lines as you have available, as rapidly as you can, one behind the other. Dial, put it on hold, dial on the next line, put it on hold, the third line, etc and if 'conference' is available, bridge the lines together so you can hear the status on each. If no conference is possible, rapidly seek monitoring one for a couple seconds, putting it back on hold and monitoring the next, etc. Let all the lines continue ringing until they get timed out for lack of answer, which will occur in many/most exchanges after two or three minutes. As soon as a line times out, immediatly dump it on your end and redial, then put it on hold and go check to see what the other lines are doing. If you had set the calls up one behind another to start with, once the first one times out the remainder will be doing the same thing a few seconds later down the line. Just keep dumping the timed out connection and reestablishing it as quickly as possible. As you approach the 9:00 time, you will probably discover that after a timeout occurs, even in the five seconds it takes you to discover it, dump it and dial it again, someone else will have seized in your place. At that point, stay on that line repeatedly dialing over and over as fast as you can until you establish the connection again. Do not worry at that point about monitoring your other lines and the possibility one of them may time out -- if that happens, good; the one you are demon-dialing at that same instant will seize what your latest dropped connection lost in all probability. Once you get up to about 8:58 or 8:59, begin monitoring all still up and ringing connections as often as you can. Bear in mind not all clocks read exactly the same time; the ticket office clock may be one minute slow or one minute fast, etc. It is very likely that once they do decide to begin answering the phone, they won't spend more than two or three seconds on a line waiting for someone on the other end to respond. If you have that line on hold while you are on another line and don't hear them pick up, you may lose out if you are not in a position to begin speaking immediatly when they respond. Therefore if you are using a phone that has a conference arrangement on it, you can sit and listen to both lines ringing at the same time and when either one gets a response (of some sort) you can quickly put the other line on hold, do what needs to be done and get back to the other line promptly, etc. Good luck with this technique. I've used it when attempting to reach radio talk show programs with a very high level of traffic. PAT] ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: Channelized DS3 Date: 7 Aug 1999 21:25:03 GMT Organization: rbfnet In article , Matthew Black wrote: > Thanks for the detailed discussion. Why is T3/DS3 rated at 45-46MB/sec > when 28*T1=43,232,000 ? (1) You need some additional bits to allow the receiving equipment to determine which bits below to which T1. (These are called Framing Bits). (2) When digital communicatons started, the idea of one master clock to which the whole world was synchronized (or multiple master clocks, but with accurate enough oscillators that they diverge by only one cycle in a really long time) wasn't around. So each T1 had it's own clock, and was not exactly 1.544 Mbps, but was 1.544Mbps +/- some tolerance that could be achieved relatively cheaply with the components of the time. Each T3 also had it's own clock, with a rate that was also +/- some reasonable tolerance. So, to get 28 T1s in a T3, you need to set the nominal T3 data rate high enough that when the T3 is running at the bottom end of it's tolerance range, and all the T1s are running at the top end of their tolerance range, they still fit in the DS3. (3) Because of #2, if the T3 isn't at the bottom of it's tolerance range, or the T1 isn't at the top of it's tolerance range, you have more "places for bits" in the T3 that you have bits coming in from a T1. So you need some additional bits to indicate which of those optional bits (which are called stuff bits) are actually in use. As technology became better, the idea of everything being effectively synchronized to the same clock became viable, and the complexity of asynchronous multiplexing because distasteful, and along came SONET, which synchronously combines the lower order connections (OC-3, for example) into higher-order connections (OC-12, OM-48, OC-192, etc.). So when you put 4 OC-3s into an OC-12, there is no need for stuff bits and the like. -- Brett ------------------------------ From: Steve Uhrig Subject: Re: Telco Recordings Tie Up Answering Machines Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 19:13:06 -0400 Organization: bright.net Ohio It's not a stupid thing. It is the standard permanent cycle for most electronic switches. The switch permanent treatment can be changed on lines with this problem to allow a temporary removal of battery from the line. This will cause some answering machines to disconnect the line, but does not work in about 50% of lines with this problem. Answering machine manufacturers need to make the machines more intelligent. Most answering machines rely on 20 year old technology to determine when they should disconnect. It is not the fault of your local phone company that the manufacturer of your answering machine has not kept up with changes in telephone technology. LGRL of Texas wrote: > Phone answering machines are designed to not record silence, dial > tones or the off hook warning. For many years, Southwestern Bell, when > a caller hangs up on an answering machine, sends 20 seconds of dial > tone, which is about the length of the outgoing message. THEN sneds a > phony ringing signal which "answers" with a recording "If you'd like > to make a call, please hang up and try again" ... all of which is > RECORDED by answering machines. > I must have four or five of these every day, and so do all of my friends. > Any other parts of the country do this STUPID thing? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #286 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Aug 8 04:48:03 1999 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA00254; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 04:48:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 04:48:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199908080848.EAA00254@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #287 TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Aug 99 04:48:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 287 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cell Phones Become Instant Bugs! (Lauren Weinstein) Twist Proposed in Wireless-Only Overlay (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Special Report: Can You Trust AT&T Wireless PCS Text Msg? (Alan Boritz) Re: eBay Fradulent High Roller Bidders (Alan Boritz) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Ed Ellers) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Steve Uhrig) Re: When/When Not to Dial '1' (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Senate Passes "Cybersquatting" Bill (Hudson Leighton) Re: Senate Passes "Cybersquatting" Bill (Louis Raphael) Re: Telco Recordings Tie Up Answering Machines (Joseph Singer) Two-Letter State (etc) Codes (Geoff Dyer) Re: Help Reaching Busy Phone Number (Steve Uhrig) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we ar